CULTURAL PERMANENCY PLANNING: COLONIZATION AND ITS LEGISLATIVE IMPACT ON HISTORICAL AND CURRENT TRENDS IN INDIGENOUS CHILD WELFARE PRACTICE by Wilhelmina Kardux Bachelor of Arts, University of the Fraser Valley, 2014 MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK in the Department of Social Work and Human Services © Wilhelmina Kardux 2022 UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY Winter 2022 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. ii Approval Name: Degree: Title: Wilhelmina Kardux Master of Social Work Cultural Permanency Planning: Colonization and its Legislative Impacts on Historical and Current Trends in Indigenous Child Welfare Practice Examining Committee: Dr. Amanda LaVallee Senior Supervisor Assistant Professor, School of Social Work & Human Services Dr. Evan Taylor Second Reader Assistant Professor, School of Social Work & Human Services Dr. Leah Douglas Graduate Program Committee Chair Associate Professor, School of Social Work & Human Services Date Defended/Approved: April 2022 iii Abstract Child protection services in British Columbia play a large role in supporting children and families and are governed by the Child, Family, and Community Services Act (CFCSA) that is intended to ensure children are protected from harm through permanency planning. For Indigenous communities, the idea of permanency requires social workers to look at culturally relevant permanency plans. This concept of cultural permanency focuses on a child or youth’s right to continue to experience meaningful relationships with their community and culture, which includes family and extended family (Bennett, 2015). The CFCSA includes legislation that references ensuring Indigenous youth, families, and communities are included in permanency planning that takes into consideration Indigenous cultures. The need for culturally relevant permanency planning and the factors that influence it can be viewed through the Socioecological systems theory (SST) to develop an understanding of the worldviews, history, legislation, and current practices that impact a social worker’s ability to deliver culturally relevant permanency plans. The literature reveals that a lack of funding, training, and resources, along with large caseloads, continue to provide substantial challenges in delivering effective services to Indigenous communities and is essentially a modern extension of colonial child welfare practice. iv Acknowledgments Dr. Amanda LaVallee, thank you for your instruction, patience, insight, and guidance; you have an incredible gift in explaining the roadmap to writing a paper and interpreting my thoughts to help formulate the direction I wanted to take my research. To my husband David, thank you for your unconditional love, ongoing support, encouragement, patience, and for continuing to believe in me, when I wanted to give up. I would also like to thank my family for their support, despite my incessant anxiety-relieving chatter about my paper and schooling during family get-togethers. To my friends, thank you for your faithful, unconditional friendship, and your understanding that this pursuit of further education meant infrequent visits and long absences. Most importantly, I would like to acknowledge the many gifts granted to me by God and that He provided me with the wisdom and strength to pursue the furthering of my education. v Table of Contents Approval ........................................................................................................................ ii Abstract ......................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................v List of Tables................................................................................................................. vi List of Terms ................................................................................................................ vii List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................... viii Social Location .............................................................................................................. ix Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................3 Conflicting Worldviews ...............................................................................................5 Historical Context Impacting Indigenous Child Welfare ............................................. 10 Agencies Impacting Indigenous Child Welfare Practices in British Columbia ............ 14 Legislation Impacting Indigenous Child Welfare Practices in British Columbia ......... 18 Current Impacts on Indigenous Cultural Permanency Planning................................... 23 Gaps in Literature .......................................................................................................... 37 Implications for Social Work ......................................................................................... 39 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 41 Appendix A ................................................................................................................... 45 References ..................................................................................................................... 47 vi List of Tables Table 1 AOPSI Compliance Descriptions 34 Table 2 Average DAA Compliance Rates 34 vii List of Terms Indigenous: The term Indigenous is used in this paper to represent First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples. Indigenous worldviews are understood as collectivist and include the voices of Indigenous people. Settler: The term settler will be used in this paper to represent white European colonizers. White perspectives are described as Eurocentric, Western, individualistic, or as colonizers. Cultural permanency: A connection to one’s culture regardless of life changes. Culturally relevant: Considering the values and traditions of one’s culture, and the connections to one’s family, extended family, community, land, and spirituality. viii List of Acronyms AOPSI Aboriginal Operational Practice Standards and Indicators APPF Aboriginal Policy and Practice Framework CFCSA Child, Family and Community Services Act CHRT Canadian Human Rights Tribunal CIC Child In Care DAA Delegated Aboriginal Agency FNCFS First Nations Child and Family Services IRC Indigenous Resources Canada MCFD Ministry of Children and Family Development RCYBC Representative for Children and Youth in British Columbia SST Socio-ecological Systems Theory ix Social Location I am a white Christian settler currently located in the traditional and unceded territories of the Stó:lō people, the Semá:th (Sumas) and Mathxwí (Matsqui) First Nations. My mother was born in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Then in 1985, my mom moved from Hendrik Ido Ambacht, the Netherlands, with her siblings and parents to settle in Canada. My father moved from Dirksland, the Netherlands, with his siblings and parents and settled in Canada in 1953 when he was two years of age. Both settled in the traditional and unceded territories of the Stó:lō peoples; the Ts'elxweyeqw (Chilliwack) and the Pilalt First Nations where I was born and raised. I was privileged to be surrounded by my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins during my formative years and adolescence. I continue to have a relationship with many of them as an adult. My white Dutch Christian cultural heritage deeply influenced my upbringing and continues to inform the cultural identity and values I hold today. As an adult, I understand the privilege my whiteness affords me. This whiteness can be defined as a “positionality of privilege systematically promoted by a racially organized world” (Mackenzie, 2020, p. 82). Along with the concept Related to the concept of whiteness is the idea of racial superiority, which is systemically entrenched in the foundation, values, and fabric of ‘Canadian’ society, despite being known for its multiculturalism (Mackenzie, 2020). ‘Canadian’ society has also been built on Christianity meaning that statutory holidays are attuned to my identity and considered the norm. As someone belonging to this ‘superior’ race, I have inherited the accompanying privilege to maintain my cultural identity without fear of having this taken away from me. Since culture and cultural identity are an integral part of me and I have had the privilege of retaining this, Indigenous youth and their communities suffer because of their Indigenous culture and worldviews due to colonizers such as myself spurs me to act compassionately. As x someone who has worked in youth housing programs (mostly in emergency placement homes) for more than seven years in the Fraser Valley, I have observed the many injustices imposed upon the youth who are placed into the programs and who are aging out of care. My observation has been that almost three-quarters of the youth I have worked alongside are Indigenous. Most of these youth have social workers that spend little to no time with them, expend little time in developing cultural permanency plans to help them reintegrate into their communities, provide few if any opportunities to learn about their heritage, or afford them very few opportunities to receive culturally relevant services. I also continually observe that Indigenous youth are often placed in long-term homes or placements with predominantly white caregivers and administrators, with little thought given to providing culturally relevant care. The advocacy work I have completed with Indigenous youth, along with my strong sense of social justice and desire to repair the harms that have been inflicted upon the Indigenous peoples influence my interest in this topic. Additionally, the lack of culturally appropriate services despite legislation that describes the necessity of Indigenous culturally relevant permanency planning, in contrast with my privilege to maintain my own cultural identity and belief that everyone must be afforded this, is an area of inequity that I have great interest in exploring. 1 Introduction The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) is an arm of the British Columbia provincial government responsible for working with children and families and delegating their work to child protection services. A description of British Columbia child protection services is located on their website which describes these services as intended to protect children from harm, particularly if there is reason to believe that a child has been abused, neglected, or requires protection (BC Government Website, 2021). The legislation and principles that guide child welfare in British Columbia are described in the Child, Family, and Community Services Act (CFCSA) (Tremblett et al., 2021). This legislation further indicates a child’s right to be protected from harm and be raised by their families, wherever possible, and steps a social worker must take to determine if a child or youth needs protection (Tremblett et al., 2021) An important aspect of protecting a child from harm is permanency, which involves the development of healthy, stable relationships that are in the best interests of the child. When children or youth have been removed from their families, child welfare works with the families, children, and youth to establish permanency based around child protection concerns. As a premise in child welfare, permanency focuses on the concept that all children and youth should have at least one stable, loving, and permanent relationship to become well-adjusted adults (Strangeland & Walsh, 2013). Unfortunately, this construct of permanency planning and having a stable relationship is typically built around the concept of a nuclear family, something youth in care often lack. Thus, permanency in child welfare is made within a framework that includes four dimensions: relational, cultural, physical, and legal (RCYBC, 2019). Each of these four dimensions of permanency are all used in child welfare work to inform decisions that will be made on behalf of a child or youth (RCYBC, 2019). 2 While these dimensions of permanency planning are presumably intended to aid youth in developing into well-adjusted adults or help them achieve a placement within a family through adoption or foster parents, this contrasts with Indigenous traditional child-rearing practices (Strangeland & Walsh, 2013). For many Indigenous populations in Canada, parents, grandparents, and community members have an interactive role in providing care for and raising children (Blackstock, 2019; de Finney & di Tomasso, 2015; Rousseau 2015), focusing on culturally relevant placement or permanency would be appropriate. For many Indigenous peoples, the concept of cultural permanency focuses on a child or youth’s right to continue to experience meaningful relationships with their community and culture, which includes family and extended family (Bennett, 2015). This is especially important as children are viewed as communal resources in many Indigenous communities, with decisions made in a child's best interest also impacting the entire community (Stangeland & Walsh, 2013). Thus, permanency planning is not only about the youth as an individual but should also focus on fostering a connection with their families and culture. This is a crucial step to support Indigenous communities in healing and restoring relationships that may have been lost due to colonial policies such as the Indian Act, Residential Schools, the Sixties Scoop, and current child welfare practices (de Finney & di Tomasso, 2015). The CFCSA contains legislation specifically for working with Indigenous children, youth, and families. Currently, 37.4 Indigenous youth are in care for every 1000 youth living in British Columbia compared to 2 non-Indigenous youth in care per 1000 youth in British Columbia (MCFD, 2021). With such high rates of Indigenous youth living in foster care, it is evident that there is a need for culturally relevant permanency planning to ensure they create or maintain important ties to their culture and community. Cultural permanency planning then has 3 important implications for social work and should be further explored. A meaningful way to ensure that Indigenous youth remain or become culturally connected is by establishing cultural permanency through custom adoptions and ensuring youth receive culturally relevant services. However, a significant barrier found within child protection and through conversations with Indigenous youth is the lack of culturally relevant services and services provided in the language spoken by their communities (RCYBC, 2014). This means that despite there being provisions in legislation to ensure cultural identity and cultural permanency planning is the standard of practice when working with Indigenous youth, there is a significant gap in delivering culturally appropriate services and a lack of understanding of the policies and legislation (RCYBC, 2014). The disconnect between legislation, policy, and service delivery lead to questions around a social worker's role in providing culturally relevant services to Indigenous youth. The driving questions of this literature review are: How is culturally relevant permanency legislation for Indigenous youth in child welfare unfolding in British Columbia? How are social workers trained in cultural permanency planning in working with Indigenous youth? What are social workers doing to help youth attain cultural permanency? To begin to answer these questions, this paper will explore Indigenous and Western conflicting worldviews, colonial history, child welfare agencies, and legislation before moving into an analysis of current child welfare practices impacting Indigenous communities, children, and youth today. Methods A thematic review of the literature was conducted for this paper to identify core themes and issues that arise. The dominant databased used to summarize the dominant themes in the literature was Ebscohost, through the University of the Fraser Valley (UFV) Library. These dominant themes include: worldviews, history, types of child welfare agencies, legislation and 4 current practices impacting cultural permanency planning. The limitations set in these searches only include scholarly and peer-reviewed journal articles written between 2010 and 2021. Since the focus is exploring the Canadian context, with a specific focus on British Columbia, the geography of the search was limited to Canada and British Columbia. Search terms used to identify the literature specific to cultural permanency for Indigenous youth in child welfare include: “Indigenous youth in care,” “permanency planning for Indigenous youth in care,” “barriers to permanency planning for Indigenous youth in care”, and “cultural permanency planning for Indigenous youth in Canada,” “Indigenous child welfare,” “reconciliation in child welfare” and “child welfare.” To inform the historical context of this paper, the search terms used include: “colonialism,” “the 60’s Scoop and child welfare in British Columbia,” and “history impacting Indigenous child welfare in British Columbia.” A search was also completed on HarvestIR, through UFV to review papers relevant to this topic. These above-mentioned search terms were also used for a general internet search on Google Scholar. To identify statistics, legislation, and reports on the current state of Indigenous child welfare in BC, a search was completed on Google. The search terms include, the Ministry of Children and Family Development BC, Indigenous child welfare BC, Jordan’s Principle, the Indian Act, and the Representative for Children and Youth in British Columbia (RCYBC). Each of these searches led to websites that contained links to reports, statistics, and further information relevant to this topic. The Indigenous publications were blended throughout the research selected. Some of the journals and reports contained Indigenous voices as represented through interviews while others included Indigenous authors or social workers working alongside Indigenous peoples in their communities. An Indigenous journal named The First Peoples Child and Family Review is well represented along with books written by Indigenous authors. 5 Literature Review Theory The need for culturally relevant permanency planning and the factors influencing these will be viewed through the Socio-ecological systems theory (SST) throughout this literature review. Eurocentric worldviews have socially constructed Canadian society and are woven throughout and fused within our political systems (Mackenzie, 2019). Factors or macro systems that continue to have an impact on Indigenous communities today include Residential schools, the 60’s Scoop, child welfare agencies, ongoing colonization, and the prevalence of colonial values (Blackstock, 2019). Within these systems, individualistic Eurocentric worldviews collide with and subsequently dominate and overpower Indigenous collectivist worldviews (Simard & Blight, 2011). The legislation that informs the political systems and child welfare practice is based on these predominant individualistic Western worldviews that are opposite that of Indigenous worldviews (Finney & Tomasso, 2015; MacKenzie, 2020). Looking at the issue as a whole system that interacts with each other and understanding the core elements that inform each system can be helpful for social workers to become agents of change at the macro, mezzo, and micro levels (Raphael et al., 2008;). Strangland and Walsh (2013), also mention the SST theory as a good structure or framework to discuss permanency options for Indigenous youth and how these fit within the Indigenous concept of the medicine wheel. The SST theory can also inform social workers of numerous factors impacting the equilibrium of Indigenous youth, their families, and communities and take these into consideration when developing plans of care (Payne, 2014). 6 Conflicting Worldviews A person’s worldview is the way that they know, see, explain, and live within the world. It informs their values and priorities and stems from their personal interpretation of the philosophy, values, and customs of the culture in which they live. While individual worldviews might differ in society, they still are interacting with the same cultural code, sharing various reference points (Joseph & Joseph, 2019). How an individual sees themselves in the world, their identity, also develops in ways dependent on which culture they grow, interact with, and identify themselves with (Quinn, 2020). This section will explore the conflicts between colonial and Indigenous worldviews and how these worldviews relate to the understanding of permanency for youth. Culturally relevant childcare is a necessary part of reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and settled Canadians (Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2015). Central to this is providing permanency in a culturally appropriate way, with cultural permanency being defined for youth and children in care as their right to an enduring family relationship, including connection to extended family, community, culture, religion, language, and the natural world (Indigenous Child Well-being Research Network, 2011; de Finney & di Tomasso, 2015; Strangeland & Walsh, 2013). A subtle hurdle to providing culturally relevant permanency is the differences in values and priorities between traditional Indigenous worldviews and the colonial Western worldviews. Western cultures appear to be informed by hierarchies, with things, knowledge, and people holding respective rankings. There is a great focus on scientific knowledge, with specific and specialized knowledge being used and extrapolated to understand the world at large (Arneil, B., 2018). The knowledge that can be tried and tested in a controlled fashion holds much more 7 value than the knowledge that is harder to define and less directly repeatable, such as in an anecdote or story (Joseph & Joseph, 2019). Authority is centralized and can be described as pyramidal, with the ones above holding power over those beneath them, that subsequently hold power over those beneath them (Blackstock 2019; Joseph & Joseph, 2019; Mackenzie, 2020). The colonization of Turtle Island by European countries was steeped in ideologies of racial superiority that continue to echo in the form of modern colonialism. Authority is held by a foreign power, with values held by the new, colonizing culture supported by that authority, and the native, Indigenous cultural values being marginalized, and their people dispossessed. (Bernstein, 2000; Blackstock, 2019; MacKenzie, 2020). The original colonization of what we now call North America and the appropriation of land by settlers was not about conquest or occupation of a foreign nation, but about the cultivation of lands that were viewed as empty or wasted, making them profitable to the newcomers and their foreign authority. The Indigenous people and communities were viewed as idle, with customs that were unproductive, so could likewise be cultivated, converted into industrious men and women freed from Indigenous cultural traditions. The perceived improvements to the land and its Indigenous peoples, and the resulting profit for both settlers and their patrons, became an ethical justification for its appropriation and was in accordance with God’s will (Locke, 1988; cited in Arneil, 2018; Blackstock, 2019). This philosophy of appropriation by a perceived improvement has been carried to the modern-day, being readily apparent in British Columbia child welfare practices today. In Calling Forth our Future, a Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) report, the child protection system is situated in the context of colonialism: 8 Colonization is the forced deconstruction of cultures and the imposition of alien ones. Colonization is theft. Theft of land, theft of resources, and theft of cultures, language, and social organization. In Canada, the theft of Indigenous Peoples Nationhood occurred, and continues to occur, with the theft of our children. (Laskin, 2021, p. 29) A ranking has been established by the colonizing Canadian culture over Indigenous cultures, cemented in place with historical exertions of superiority. It was not viewed as theft when Indigenous people were barred from their land because that land was considered ‘wild’, and not treated with the same authority the colonizers thought should be applied to land that was owned (Blackstock, 2019). The same could be said for children taken from their parents under the guise of ‘neglect’, as their direct parents did not exert the same authority over their children that good Western parents are thought to (Mackenzie, 2020). Many justifications for the current state of child welfare and the separation of Indigenous children from their community are made based on circumstances placed on those communities that are enforced by governing powers. The view that Indigenous peoples must be assimilated into Canadian colonial culture for their own good is still commonplace (Mackenzie, 2020; Blackstock, 2019; McKenzie et. al., 2016). Canadian colonial worldviews tend to hinge around liberalism, with a strong focus on individualism and the accumulation of power within a nuclear family (Mackenzie, 2020; Quinn, 2020; Strangeland & Walsh, 2013). Liberalism holds freedom of the individual from involuntary subservience to the group, be it family, community, government, or religion, as the central value. The main purpose of governing bodies is to protect the liberties of individuals from each other and larger groups, as well as to remove obstacles to liberty such as poverty, discrimination, health, and education (Constant & Ducharme, 2009). Liberalist views are dominant in Canada, focused on freedom of expression with regards to religion and politics, and freedom in economic 9 enterprise, with political parties varying in their focus on particular freedoms and how to go about protecting or fostering those freedoms (Walmsey, 2019). A key underpinning of liberalism is the concept of individualism, which deeply influences Canadian child welfare ideologies and practices. Individualism in western cultures places the efforts of the individual as the main factor in that person’s place in the social hierarchy. Whether it is an individual’s level of wealth, their power, their class, or their health, it is through their efforts, or lack thereof, that they have obtained their social location (Travers, 1997; cited in Raphael et al, 2008). Liberalism holds a focus on the nuclear family, with the parent figures in control of all aspects of their charge’s life, which ensures that the child or youth is well informed regarding the worldview of their immediate guardians. The child is also shielded from other cultures and worldviews, with the caregiver providing the lens through which the charge can interact with the world (Mackenzie, 2020). Even if the child does not respond positively to this indoctrination, the issue remains that the worldview they develop is still in reference to that of their primary caregiver, and other ways of knowing are foreign to them. A nuclear family is generally viewed as the ideal in western societies, with individuals given the power to raise their children as they see fit, and a preference for this family unit is shown in policy and legislation (Strangeland & Walsh, 2013). As a matter of course, if the primary caregiver/s are unable to provide adequate care by themselves, it is in the best interests of the child to place them with caregivers that are capable of independence. The hierarchy is simple and apparent: an individual that is unable to care for their charge on their own has failed, even absent abuse, and is inferior to an independent caregiver. The child or youth must simply abandon their old culture and community and submit to the worldview of their new caregiver/s 10 (Laskin, 2021; McKenzie et. al., 2016). However, in white Canadian foster homes, there is an apparent lack of education about the cultural harms experienced by Indigenous people and communities and so their foster children will be raised ignorant of those harms, erasing them from cultural memory (Mackenzie, 2020). A common worldview shared by many Indigenous cultures in Canada is the cyclical nature of Creation, with each individual holding responsibility for their effect on everything else in the circle of life. As such, all life is sacred, with humans as part of this circle, neither above nor below the rest of Creation. At the center of the circle sits the Creator, source of all parts of the circle, and harmony between the individual, this Creator, and the rest of Creation needs to be maintained for a healthy life and a healthy world. Indigenous approaches tend to be more holistic and are guided, but not dictated, by traditional practices and experiences passed down through the ages (Joseph & Joseph, 2019; Manuel, 2018; Simard & Blight, 2011). Traditionally, Indigenous worldviews are collectivist in nature, with family values extending beyond the nuclear set of parents and offspring to the greater community, including elements of spirituality and the health of the land (Bennett, 2015; Rousseau, 2015; Strangeland & Walsh, 2013). Childrearing responsibilities are shared if they cannot be handled by the parents alone, with the parents never being completely displaced from their child’s life. Elders and traditional teachers in the community provide cultural and spiritual guidance, with children and youth receiving opportunities to participate in cultural ceremonies. They also prepare the youth for interacting constructively with other communities, informing them of expected value conflicts and potential prejudice they may face (Bennett, 2015; Blackstock, 2019; Quinn, 2020; Strangeland & Walsh, 2013). 11 Historical Context Impacting Indigenous Child Welfare Canada’s colonial history is rife with discriminatory legislation and policies that continue to impact Indigenous youth today. Many of these policies were enacted to deal with what settlers considered ‘the Indian Problem’ and help ensure the Indigenous would assimilate and conform to the settlers' way of life and beliefs (Sinclair, 2016). Residential schools were an educational assimilation intervention, used under these discriminatory policies and intended to shape Indigenous children's morality so that it would fit into these Euro-Western Christian Standards (McKenzie et al, 2016). The Indian Act is an example of legislation enacted that advised how government officials and settlers could use their authority to ‘help’ the Indigenous assimilate into these Euro-Western Christian norms. Joseph (2018) writes about the Indian Act being an instrument of oppression that resulted in intergenerational trauma and dismantling of their cultures, still felt by Indigenous communities today in the dismantling of their culture. The Indian Act was first legislated in 1876 and gave power to white settlers allowing them to control and destroy the Indigenous peoples and their cultures (Johnstone & Lee, 2020). Then in 1892, the Act was amended, and this authorized Indian agents to remove Indigenous children and youth between the ages of 5 - 15 from their communities and place them in residential schools (Blackstock, 2019; Johnstone & Lee, 2019). In 1920, the Indian Act made it mandatory for Indigenous children to attend residential schools. This included status Indians, Metis, Inuit, and non-Status First Nations as schools received more funding per capita if they increased enrollment (McKenzie et al, 2016). The belief of settlers, churches, and government officials was that Indigenous children needed to be assimilated so that they could civilize them, thereby eliminating the Indian problem and wiping out their culture (Blackstock, 2019). This is especially notable in the beliefs settlers 12 held towards Indian parents, commonly being seen as negligent, particularly if a child or youth’s mothers had not assimilated into settler society (McKenzie et al, 2016). These views of Indigenous parents thus made it possible for social workers to find a reason to remove children as these decisions were justified out of good intent to educate them, instill Christian values, and protect them from their negligent and pagan parents (Blackstock, 2019). The removal of Indigenous children from their homes to place them in residential schools can be viewed as the first example of child ‘welfare’ or child ‘protection’ in British Columbia as a whole. In fact, Cindy Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, among many others, has conducted research indicating that social workers were directly involved in the removal of children from their communities (Blackstock,2019). Despite the profession of social work frequently looking for ways to absolve itself of its responsibility in removing children, the reality is that Indigenous children and youth were often apprehended by social workers, who then placed them in residential schools and never returned them to their family homes (Auger, 2012). In 1949, a special joint committee of the Senate of the House of Commons assembled to reassess the costly residential school programs (Johnstone & Lee, 2020). The decision at this time was to instead integrate Indigenous youth into the mainstream education system to decrease costs while still ensuring they received a Eurocentric education. Social workers were involved in the meeting and suggested that it would be in the best interest of Indigenous children and youth to place them in white families, particularly those youth who were considered troubled (Johnstone & Lee, 2020). Johnston & Lee (2020) state that the Indian Act was then amended to enable social workers and government inspectors, with the support of the provincial government, to perform inspections on the reserves and apprehend children into the child welfare system. 13 In 1951, the Canadian government once again made amendments to the Indian Act, this time adjusting Section 88 to allow the provinces to assume responsibility for the Indigenous and apply their laws (Kozlowski, Sinha & Lucas, 2011, cited in Thompson, 2020). During the 1960s, the British Columbia government officially assumed responsibility for Indigenous children and youth and began removing children from their homes through the provincial child welfare system. This resulted in what is widely known as the 60’s Scoop as more and more Indigenous children were inducted into the foster care system (Thompson, 2020). In each of these cases, “Aboriginal social and legal structures were substituted for western “civilized” systems, which carried with them Eurocentric values that both dismissed and undermined the social and legal order in Aboriginal societies” (Holyk & Harder, 2016, p. 86). Kozlowski et al., (2012) write that prior to the introduction of Section 88, “less than one percent of all youth in care in BC were Aboriginal, and by the early 1960s approximately 34% of youth in care were Aboriginal” (p.2). Blackstock (2019) describes this increase in mass removals of Indigenous children and youth from their homes as caused by a lack of professional oversight for social workers and child welfare services and the systemic ignorance regarding the impact colonization and residential schools had on Indigenous communities. This lack of oversight by professional regulatory governing bodies was also apparent in that social workers were not required to complete training in social work when working with Indigenous youth (Johnston & Lee, 2020). The assimilation policies created by the colonial governments continue to lead to high rates of child removal and overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care (Gough, Trocmé, Brown, Knoke, and Blackstock, 2005, cited in Sinclair, 2016). This continuation of mass removal of Indigenous children from the communities and homes, as initiated in the 1960s is now known as the Millennial Scoop, due to ongoing removal and assimilation practices 14 (Thompson, 2020). The result is that Indigenous children are placed in care at twice the rate of their non-Indigenous counterparts. This appears to be due to colonial assimilation practices as these have caused poor socioeconomic conditions, neglect, substance use, criminal activity, and cognitive impairment that typically leads to investigations and child apprehension (Sinclair, 2016). The impact of the child welfare system has resulted in the overrepresentation of Indigenous children and youth in care, reminiscent of the impacts of residential schools: loss of close ties to their communities, distinct cultural traditions, languages, and way of life (Auger, 2012). Agencies Impacting Indigenous Child Welfare Practices in British Columbia In current child welfare practices two agencies, both directly and indirectly, are involved in providing child protection services to Indigenous children and youth. These two organizations are Delegated Aboriginal Agencies (DAA) and the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD). When first considering these two agencies, one may assume these agencies are two separate entities involved in administering child welfare, with DAA’s being responsible for Indigenous communities as the names would suggest. However, DAA’s are in fact an initiative from MCFD that is intended to address the number of Indigenous children in care (BC Government DAA, 2021). To become a Delegated Aboriginal Agency, an Indigenous community develops agreements with the Provincial Director for child welfare. The intent of these delegation agreements is “to return the historic responsibilities for child protection and family supports to Indigenous communities” (BC Government DAA, 2021, para. 2). Once a delegation agreement has been made, the Provincial Director of Child welfare is the one who gives “authority” to the DAA’s to administer the CFCSA (BC Government DAA, 2021). 15 While the development of Delegated Aboriginal Agencies can be perceived as settlers returning autonomy to Indigenous communities and hence a step in the right direction, the way it is being implemented can be viewed as another form of colonialism disguised in a patronizing manner. To become a DAA, Indigenous communities must participate in three phases of program development: The pre-planning phase, planning, and start-up. Each of these phases is in collaboration and under the guidance of the Provincial Director of Child welfare. During the preplanning phase, an Indigenous community wanting to develop a DAA engage in community consultation, data collection, and information gathering so that they can develop a proposal in collaboration with the British Columbia government and Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). This proposal must then include information on what kinds of services they would like to offer their community, how they plan to carry out or offer these services and show that they have the support of their community (BC Government DAA, 2021). The planning phase is intended for developing a formal agreement between the British Columbia government, the Indigenous community, and ISC. At this point in the delegation process, the community must complete a needs assessment along with various plans that prove they are ready to open a DAA. These plans must include criteria such as: “respective roles and responsibilities, service delivery model, personnel policies, financial policy, organizational chart, job descriptions, accounting system, implementation plan, and funding arrangements” (BC Government Delegation Process, 2021, para 6). The final phase of becoming a DAA is the startup phase where the community begins to put its plan into action. This includes hiring staff, setting up offices, installing office equipment, supplies and databases as well as creating training for the community and the board of directors. Once this has all been completed, the Director of Child Protection must conduct a program review and, if the program passes, will sign an 16 agreement that will allow the agency to begin operations (BC Government Delegation Process, 2021). Due to current child welfare legislation in place, the province of British Columbia maintains responsibility for ensuring the safety of all children and youth (Holyk & Harder, 2016). This is regardless of whether the agency involved is the Ministry of Children and Family Development or a Delegated Aboriginal Agency. As noted in the process of becoming a DAA, “the Director has legislative authority with respect to the protection of children and the provision of services to children and families in British Columbia” through the CFCSA (Holyk & Harder, 2016, p. 86). Ultimately, the final authority then is the Director, who has been placed in a position of power to make decisions on behalf of the Indigenous communities, as outlined in legislation. Therefore, while having a DAA can help Indigenous communities retain their culture to then pass it on to their children, this only can continue if the Director deems the DAA is acting in accordance with their expectations and understanding of child welfare legislation. There are three levels or categories (C) of delegation an agency may receive, including C3, C4, and C6. The level of delegation a DAA is provided by MCFD indicates the types of services that the agency may provide, under the legislation of the CFCSA (Thompson, 2020). The level of delegation determines which standards the agency will be audited for as described in the 2009 Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators (AOPSI) alongside specific ministry standards (Representative for Children and Youth, 2017; cited in Thompson, 2020). Each of these levels of delegation has specific responsibilities attached to the category they fall under. The delegation levels that have specific responsibilities for ensuring Indigenous youth have a plan of care that includes a cultural permanency plan are those who have received a C4 and C6. These agencies include the responsibilities ascribed to a C3 agency but also have 17 additional responsibilities as related to their level of delegation. Both C4 and C6 DAA hold responsibility in developing, monitoring, and reviewing comprehensive care plans for those Indigenous youth who are in care, which includes permanency planning (Richards, 2017, BC Government DAA, 2021). One set of standards a DAA is required to follow is the 2005 AOPSI. These standards are intended to set a foundation for delivering services to Indigenous communities and layout the minimum expectation. The document lists each standard that needs to be followed and for each standard, there is an explanation for what this should look like in practice, along with a list of criteria to achieve each standard. The standards are somewhat different from the standards of practice used by MCFD. Both MCFD standards and AOPSI state the importance of safety and protection for children and youth, but AOPSI places more emphasis on the importance of families, communities, and culture. However, like MCFD this standard does state that the importance of safety and protection for children and youth is a priority. These practice standards are also intended for use of frontline staff such as social workers, who undergo delegation training where they learn how to use these standards (AOPSI 2005). The 2009 AOPSI is a revised set of standards that must be followed by DAAs. This set of standards is intended to address the operational practice aspects of a DAA in a more simplified manner. When an Indigenous community would like to set up a DAA in their community, these are the standards of practice they must follow to successfully obtain a level of delegation. Essentially, these standards are intended to assess if an agency has obtained operational readiness at a delegated level, becoming worthy to receive funding from IRC, and are used as criteria for auditing a DAA. Like the 2005 AOPSI, the document lists each standard that needs to be followed, and for 18 each standard there is an explanation for what this should look like in practice, along with a list of criteria to achieve each standard (AOPSI, 2009). MCFD, on the other hand, does not appear to go through the delegation process to work with Indigenous youth. All social workers working at MCFD are required to go use the Aboriginal Policy and Practice Framework (APPF) in British Columbia. This framework contains descriptions of Indigenous child welfare practice that focuses on important Indigenous values and the use of a circle (APPF 2016; Richards, 2017). However, MCFD can be viewed as the ‘dominant’ agency and are an extension of the provincial government responsible for overseeing and administering the Eurocentric legislation for all agencies working with Indigenous youth. Unlike the DAA’s, they do not appear to be audited for implementing culturally relevant services and planning for Indigenous youth. Legislation Impacting Indigenous Child Welfare Practices in British Columbia In British Columbia, two pieces of legislation that continue to inform child welfare practice for a social worker who is working with Indigenous youth; The Child, Family, and Community Services Act (CFCSA) and the Indian Act. There is also a legal requirement, as per Orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT), that anyone providing services to Indigenous youth follow Jordan’s Principle (AFN, 2021), which will be explored in greater depth later in this analysis. Some of these mandates have language that specifically refers to culture and culturally appropriate services that must be considered or provided to Indigenous youth and one of them makes little reference to this. These mandates are a result and continuation of systemic oppression and colonization that continues to result in the lack of culturally irrelevant permanency planning for Indigenous youth (Roseau, 2015). 19 Currently, provincial, and federal legislation provide conflicting messages regarding decision-making for Indigenous youth in care. The Indian Act, which was initially put into action in 1876, stated that Indigenous peoples are the Crown wards for whom Canada is responsible (Kirmayer et al., 2003, cited in Strangeland and Walsh, 2013). The Indian Act, in its current state, impacts child welfare for those Indigenous youth and families who live on reserves. Section 88 of the Indian Act, introduced in 1951, states that “all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province” (Indian Act, 1985, s. 88, c. 9, s. 151). The 1951 revision to the Indian Act is directly impacting Indigenous child welfare today as section 88 makes it possible for the provinces to apply and enforce provincial child welfare legislation (Kozlowski, et al., 2012). This revision meant that the federal government no longer had fiduciary responsibility for Indigenous child welfare. (Paul 2016; Simard 2019; Strangeland and Walsh, 2013). In British Columbia, the legislation that is enforced in child welfare is the Child Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA). The CFCSA legislation directs how social workers must proceed in child protection cases regarding Indigenous children and youth. These are found in sections such as Guiding Principles, Service Delivery Principles, and the Best Interest of Child (CFCSA, 2020). These sections refer to cultural permanency planning, such as preserving the cultural identity as being in the best interest of an Indigenous child or youth and involving Indigenous communities in service planning and delivery (BC Government, 2021). Lastly, Section 8 of the CFCSA specifically addresses making a comprehensive care plan. Guiding Principles in section 2 of the CFCSA, makes specific considerations for Indigenous youth and states that “the act must be interpreted and administered so that the safety 20 and well-being of children are the paramount considerations and in accordance with the following principles: (b) A family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of children and the responsibility for the protection of children rests primarily with the parents; (b.1) Indigenous families and Indigenous communities share responsibility for the upbringing and well-being of Indigenous children; (f) Indigenous children are entitled to: learn about and practice their Indigenous traditions, customs, and languages; belong to their Indigenous communities. (CFCSA, 2020, S2) These sections, added to the CFCSA in 2020, can be viewed as a step in the right direction in terms of the provincial government providing more specific legislation relating to Indigenous child welfare. The previous 2017 version of the CFCSA Act had a brief section in Guiding Principles mentioning that “the cultural identity of aboriginal children should be preserved” (p.7). As seen in the CFCSA section 2 quoted above, the wording in the current legislation provides much more guidance to social workers and applies significance to Indigenous worldviews, traditions, and cultures. This updated legislation specifically states that Indigenous families and communities share child raising responsibilities and that Indigenous children are both entitled to learn about their cultures and belong to their communities. Service Delivery Principles in section 3 of the CFCSA also were revised in 2020 to expand involvement of Indigenous people in the planning and delivery of services to Indigenous families, such that those services are planned and provided in ways sensitive to their needs, their cultural, racial, and religious. From an SST perspective the acknowledgment of trauma, impacts of colonial systems, and their corresponding effect on the Indigenous certainly can be used for 21 providing relevant and current guidance to social workers who are working with Indigenous communities. The final section that provides guidance and lays the basic groundwork to Indigenous child welfare can be found in Best Interests of the Child, Section 4 of the CFCSA. This section of the CFCSA begins by listing relevant factors that a social worker needs to consider when determining what is in the child's best interest. The section then goes on to provide specific direction for what to consider when working with Indigenous children and youth to include both “the importance of the child being able to learn about and practice the child’s Indigenous traditions, customs, and language,” and “the importance of the child belonging to the child’s Indigenous community” (CFCSA, 2020, S4.2). Previously, the Best Interests of the Child section of the CFCSA had one brief sentence that simply advised social workers to consider the importance of preserving an Indigenous child’s cultural identity, lacking any context for its importance in considering those best interests (CFCSA, 2017). Therefore, the addition of some guidance around the best interest of the child, specific to Indigenous children, can certainly be seen as an improvement over the previous version of the CFCSA. Section 8 of the CFCSA directly pertains to cultural permanency planning and discusses making a plan of care, that is informed by Sections, 2, 3, & 4. This section of the CFCSA states that the parent is to be involved in developing the plan, incorporating their views into it, and if it is an “aboriginal child” then the views of their treaty First Nation, Nisga’a Lisims Government, Indian band, or aboriginal community are considered as well (CFCSA, 2020, Section 8.2). The care plan must also include a description of how the director plans to meet the needs of Indigenous youth by ensuring “continuity of cultural heritage, religion, language, and social and 22 recreational activities” (CFCSA, 2020, Section 8.2). Additionally, MCFD also has policies that address how to develop care plans that support the identity of Indigenous children and youth and are intended to support the interpretation and integration of the CFCSA. MCFD Policy 5.1, implemented in June 2017 and amended in May 2021 is a policy that addresses supporting Indigenous children and youth to develop and preserve their cultural ties and identity by working with Indigenous communities to develop a culturally relevant permanency plan. These changes to the CFCSA appear to make this important piece of child welfare legislation inclusive and collaborative in terms of considering Indigenous communities' needs. However, it must be recognized that this document is rooted in colonial values and contributes to the ongoing systemic racism faced by Indigenous peoples to date (Blackstock, 2019; Mackenzie, 2020). This can make the implementation of this legislation challenging, particularly when the agent involved is a Eurocentric government (John, 2016). The burden of responsibility for numerous Indigenous services is divided between the federal and provincial governments. Jordan’s Principle is a federal policy designed to provide immediate care to Indigenous children, normally available to all Canadian children, that would otherwise suffer delays due to bureaucratic conflicts between federal and provincial branches. The policy states that whichever government first provides services to the child will pay for those services, with jurisdictional disputes settled later (Richard, 2017; Government of Canada, 2021). It was brought about in response to the situation surrounding Jordan Anderson, who was born in 1999 and died at five years of age without ever leaving the hospital to see his home. The default stance was, and often still is, to defer or deny care to Indigenous children if there is any dispute between federal and provincial governments regarding jurisdiction of payment for that care (Blackstock, 2019). 23 While the provincial government of British Columbia started endorsing Jordan’s Principle in 2008 (Richard, 2017), its scope on the federal level was narrowly defined to children on reserve with multiple disabilities requiring multiple services. It wasn’t until 2016 that the CHRT ordered Canada to expand the scope of Jordan’s principle and reform First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS), by providing additional compliance guidelines in subsequent years. For instance, culturally appropriate services that are beyond those available to all Canadian children need to be evaluated by the government department of first contact within 48 hours of receipt, with any refusal being in writing and approval meaning funding is provided without administrative delays. In addition, the CHRT ordered Canada to adequately publicize information on Jordan’s Principle, placing it on the web and distributing material for training and education (Government of Canada, 2021). Current Impacts on Indigenous Cultural Permanency Planning Currently, social work practice in British Columbia is governed by the CFCSA, which is a piece of legislation that caters to the Eurocentric narrative and is written from a Eurocentric perspective (BC Government, 2021; Blackstock, 2019). This act, along with the imposition of colonial policies, is an oppressive macro government system that has resulted in thousands of Indigenous children being removed from their homes both past and present (Blackstock, 2019; Johnstone & Lee, 2019). As stated by Richard (2017), “colonization is not just a historical event in Canada - it has, and continues to have, significant negative effects on the contemporary lives of Indigenous peoples in Canada” (p.11). In the context of Indigenous children and youth, child welfare and social work practice continue to be informed by a western worldview and education. The “best interests of a child” concept as found in the CFCSA, for example, is one that centers around ideas of the nuclear family and individualism. Indigenous worldviews with their 24 collectivist perspectives on family and child-rearing continue to be challenging for social workers to understand and accept. This includes social workers working through MCFD and those employed at DAAs. DAA social workers are faced with many challenges in providing culturally relevant services and permanency planning for Indigenous youth and their communities. A large component contributing to this challenge is the way funding is allocated to DAA’s versus MCFD child welfare agencies alongside a few other factors (Richard, 2017). Richard (2017) lists the issues faced by DAA’s which include: “Lack of culturally sensitive training and learning; opportunities; competing child protection standards; challenges associated with working in one’s own community; limited community resources; lack of wage and benefits parity and high workloads (p.26).” While this is not an exhaustive list of factors, it helps discern the top challenges faced by DAA social workers. Based on these challenges, it is evident that funding, resources, and staffing are among the largest difficulties for Delegated Aboriginal Agencies. The result is that social workers are unable to provide their youth and families with culturally appropriate plans and resources. Culturally based knowledge training is important for social workers to participate in, particularly when providing services to Indigenous youth living on reserve, and to help avoid a loss of cultural identity for those Indigenous youth who are placed outside their communities (Richard, 2017). Without these valuable opportunities, and the funding that must be provided with these opportunities, social workers are not adequately trained to administer culturally appropriate permanency options to the children, youth, and families they are working with. These lack of training opportunities also coincide with a lack of funding and high workloads. Richards (2017) describes how each DAA works as a separate agency and therefore they are 25 unable to pool their funding to reduce the cost of training for these underfunded agencies. A further challenge is that with high workloads, DAA social workers also have less time to attend training, should an opportunity arise. While funding for training is an issue at the DAA level, a quick survey of the universities across British Columbia also reveals a distinct lack of Indigenous focused courses and programs. Most of British Columbia’s Bachelor of Social Work programs offer one mandatory Indigenous course. Those who choose to continue their social work education at the master’s level, are not required to complete any additional social work courses. Three universities in British Columbia do provide students with the opportunity to pursue more of an Indigenous focused program. The University of Northern British Columbia offers a Bachelor of Social Work with an Indigenous specialization option for those students interested in this (UNBC, 2022). Nicola Valley Institute of Technology Bachelor of Social Work includes several mandatory Indigenous courses, and the entire degree includes a strong element of Indigenous focus (NVIT, 2022). The University of Victoria also offers a Bachelor of Social Work with an Indigenous specialization option, but this program is limited to those who identify as First Nations, Inuit, or Metis (UVIC, 2022) The University of Victoria is the only university that offers an Indigenous specialization option to Master of Social Work students and registration to this stream is open to students of all ancestry and ethnicities (UVIC, 2022). This brief snapshot of social work education in British Columbia shows that many social work programs inadequately prepare students to work with Indigenous peoples and communities. One of the few opportunities for formal training a social worker may receive relevant to working with Indigenous peoples and communities is delegation training, which focuses on teaching how to apply the AOPSI Standards in their work with Indigenous families and youth 26 (AOPSI, 2009). While there are different culturally sensitive and Indigenous-related training opportunities available, the lack of funding combined with high caseloads will continue to exacerbate the lack of training received. As such this general omission of Indigenous-specific training available to social workers will continue to hinder their ability to ensure culturally relevant plans and placements are provided to Indigenous youth (Richards, 2017; John, 2016). Western worldviews and expectations, as a macro system of ideologies contained in the CFCSA, compete with Indigenous worldviews and their child protection standards. This impacts social workers who embrace Indigenous worldviews and Indigenous social workers' ability to be effective in delivering culturally relevant services, as they must work within the predominantly Western CFCSA. Indigenous social workers often find their work rooted in or guided by their culturally based worldviews (Richard, 2017). Often these values and worldviews are opposite that of mainstream child protection standards. The result of this difference may “minimize significant cultural differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous families and limit the workers' ability to interpret child protection policies in ways that are consistent with Indigenous traditions and practices” (Richard, 2017, p. 25). The CFCSA and corresponding mandates and policies also make it difficult for social workers to respond to the communities needs in culturally relevant ways, such as focusing on collaboration with the extended family and engaging the community (Rosseau, 2015). Interpreting legislation around the best interests of the child and making it culturally relevant to Indigenous communities is difficult to achieve in a system that is rife with colonial values (Mackenzie, 2020). Additionally, specific rulings on previous or historic cases in child welfare typically set the precedence for further rulings and social work practice. An example of this pertaining to the best interests of a child was in 1983 in the case of Ravine v. Wood. In her 27 ruling, Judge Wilson made a statement that implied that ultimately attachment will become more important to a child than their culture, which can be seen as detrimental to Indigenous communities (Sinclair, 2016). Justice Wilson stated, In my view, when the test to be met is the best interests of the child, the significance of cultural background and heritage as opposed to bonding abates over time. The closer the bond that develops with the prospective adoptive parents the less important the racial element becomes. (Cited in Sinclair, 2016, p. 11) This liberalist colonial view of Indigenous culture has been adopted by the child welfare system as a standard to inform decisions in court, which both dismisses cultural background and permanently places Indigenous youth into the child welfare system (Sinclair, 2016). The best interests of the child perspective as a microsystem is also an individualistic Eurocentric concept that assumes the white nuclear family is the fittest to raise a child (Sinclair, 2016). While the CFCSA discusses the importance of an Indigenous child being able to maintain their cultural identity, this is dependent on the interpretation of what is considered in the best interests of the child. Section 4.1 of the CFCSA states that “all relevant factors must be considered in determining the child's best interest” such as the “child’s safety” (CFCSA, 2020). The word safety is mentioned in CFCSA Section 2 where it reads, “this act must be interpreted so that the safety…of children are the paramount considerations” (CFCSA, 2020). This section then goes on to mention that children should be protected from neglect. As Grand Chief Ed John points in his 2016 report, there is no statutory definition of what is meant by neglect. He also states that historically assessments to determine neglect were often based on hygiene, morality, how parents behaved, and if the parents would be able to provide the children with a good future as a complete individual as per Western ideology (John, 2016). Therefore, what is considered a 28 child's safety, and, in the child’s best interest is subjective to whoever is reviewing the case because there is nothing definitive contained in the CFCSA. Section 2 of the CFCSA (2020) states that Indigenous children are entitled to learn about their Indigenous culture and languages and belong to their communities. In relation to child protection reports of neglect, this is typically ignored when considering the best interest of the child (John, 2016). When working with Indigenous youth who are experiencing neglect, social workers must decide if a case warrants removal, which is subjective to the social workers' worldview on what constitutes neglect (Sinclair, 2016). “Increased caseloads, poorly trained workers, media attention and political pressures often combine to lead to decisions that are not in the children’s best interest” (Mennen & ‘O Keefe, 2005, p. 578). Without adequate knowledge and training on Indigenous history or a lack of consideration of this, Indigenous youth are more likely to be removed from their families. The courts have also set precedence in giving more weight to the “perceived bonds” in lieu of culture because of Justice Wilson's ruling in 1983 (Sinclair, 2016, p.13). The result is the continuation of systemic assimilation techniques that do not result in culturally relevant permanency plans but instead are reminiscent of fixing the ‘Indian problem’ (Sinclair, 2016). In his report pertaining to Indigenous child welfare agencies in British Columbia, Grand Chief Ed John assessed the CFCSA in 2016 and highlighted sections that pertain to collaborating with Indigenous communities and extended families and maintaining cultural identity. The report also discusses the challenges involved in the interpretation of mandates and policies such as the CFCSA and the wording it contains. Service delivery principles, as outlined in Section 3 of the CFCSA, speaks to the importance of planning with Indigenous families and their children. This section of the CFCSA discusses that Indigenous people ‘should’ be involved in planning and 29 delivering services to Indigenous families and youth (CFCSA, 2020). As well, the importance of considering the impact of residential schools ‘should’ also be considered and planning of services ‘should’ be planned and provided in a culturally appropriate manner (CFCSA, 2020). While it is important that this is included in the legislation, the phrasing is not definitive in that it uses the word ‘should,’ which can create challenges in interpretation. The word ‘should’ can be interpreted as more of a recommendation, whereas if this were to be replaced with the work ‘must’ or ‘shall’ it may help interpret this to be understood as mandatory (Koltai, 2014). Therefore, the language within the CFCSA requires clarity, and an additional framework must be created to aid social workers in establishing culturally essential and relevant plans for Indigenous youth in care. While the first three sections of the CFCSA are intended to set the standard for general child welfare practices, this act also provides guidance for making a plan of care. In fact, in British Columbia, as per MCFD Policy 5.1 (2021) it is a legal requirement that all children and youth involved in child welfare have a care plan. This plan must have steps that outline how the child’s identity will be preserved by providing a culturally relevant permanency plan for each youth (John, 2016). Specific sections to be included in a cultural plan are the child’s heritage, genealogy, language, spiritual practices, and traditional foods as well as how to incorporate a child’s connections to extended family and how they will or have access to their traditional teachings (Manuel, 2018). In Grand Chief Ed John’s discussions with individuals working at DAAs throughout British Columbia and his conversations with Indigenous community leaders, he writes that the reality is that there are several shortcomings in developing care plans including culturally relevant care plans. He states, 30 Care plans, I was informed, rarely include a strong cultural component that adequately addresses the language, culture, and identity. For children who are residing outside of their community, it is even more unlikely that care plans include an adequate cultural component. (p.148) So, despite provincial law requiring a care plan to be written, there is a distinct lack of care plans available to every child in care (CIC), whether they are Indigenous or settlers. MCFD does have a form they can use when writing a care plan that has a section dedicated to addressing a CIC’s cultural identity (John, 2016). This section includes areas for discussing a CIC’s individual strengths and needs as well as an area to discuss the actions required to work alongside a CIC in preserving their cultural identity (John, 2016). A substantial issue in carrying out this work is that social workers, whether they work for MCFD or a DAA, are often non-Indigenous. Grand Chief Ed John points out that these social workers do not have knowledge of Indigenous cultures and languages and therefore would not know how or what to include in this section a CIC care plan (John, 2016). Perhaps one of the most controversial issues within child welfare practice in British Columbia concerns the funding structure that is currently in practice. The federal government, through Indigenous Services Canada (ISC), is responsible for delivering funding to child welfare services on reserves through Direction 20-I. Bennett, et al. (2005) provide a succinct description of the Directive 20-1: Policy Directive 20-1 is essentially a formula for funding Indigenous child welfare services and the development of Indigenous child welfare agencies. It is a populationbased formula—a community or group of communities must have an on-reserve child population (aged 0-18) of at least 1000 to be considered for funding. (p.40) 31 This population-based funding appears to be inherently discriminatory in nature and the result of ongoing systemic oppression faced by Indigenous communities. To maintain this funding, child welfare agencies working with Indigenous communities on reserve would also need to ensure culturally appropriate permanency plans are in place. Another caveat to maintaining funding is that child welfare agencies must serve at least 251 eligible children, or IRC will no longer provide any funding to those agencies (Richard 2017). Policy Directive 20-1 also requires that any agency funded through this directive also adheres to the CFCSA, following their guidelines and limits (Richard, 2017, Bennett, et al, 2005). Therefore, in terms of funding, social workers working with Indigenous communities once again find themselves stuck between appeasing the CFCSA requirements and allocating time to create culturally relevant permanency plans for Indigenous youth. While there are some additional monies available through the provincial government for DAA’s on reserve, all funding to DAA’s and MCFD agencies off reserve are provided funded by the provincial government (Paul, 2016). However, if a DAA is partially delegated, the funding is variable and can sometimes be provided by the federal government and at other times be funded through the provincial government. Since the legislation and jurisdiction around this are not always precisely clear, this continues to create conflict around who is responsible for youth. This lack of clarity and funding disputes continues to be an issue despite the enactment of Jordan’s Principle in 2008, which was meant to ensure that there are no gaps in publicly funded services and supports available to Indigenous cultures and to help create “substantive equality” (Assembly of First Nations, 2018, p.1). The CHRT also upholds that Jordan’s Principle should apply to all First Nations children and not discriminate between those living on or off-reserve (Assembly of First Nations, 2018). Despite these rulings in place to ensure equality and eliminate 32 gaps in services, DAA’s and other social services available to the Indigenous continue to be underfunded, lack resources, and struggle to meet the needs of the basic and cultural needs of youth in their care (Quinn, 2020). Although the provincial and federal governments have recently restructured and reallocated more funding towards Indigenous programming, it is still not enough to address the disparity and inequality experienced by Indigenous youth served by DAAs compared to those who are directly under the umbrella of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. An Executive Director of one of the DAA’s stated that, “right now, we are being funded based on the number of children in care. But if your ultimate goal is to keep children out of care, it’s a backward setup” (Richard, 2017 p. 28). This flawed and insufficient funding, which is received through Directive 20-1, is found to incentivize removing Indigenous children from their families and does little to address the basic and cultural needs of Indigenous communities (Richard, 2017). In addition to this, there is no funding in place for informal care agreements, such as placing youth with extended families or within the community without a court order. While CFCSA speaks about placing children within their families and communities, this lack of funding makes it difficult for DAAs to find the least disruptive means to utilize alongside a reduced ability to ensure cultural continuity for children. As a result, social workers are finding it challenging to develop culturally relevant permanency plans with Indigenous youth. The Provincial Director of Child Welfare and Aboriginal Services conducts periodic audits of selected DAA’s (DAA Audit, 2021). These audits are intended to ensure that agencies are adhering to the AOPSI practice guidelines so that they can maintain their delegation status. The audit is also intended to ensure best practices are followed and provide advice in areas that 33 do not adhere to or follow a standard closely (DAA Audit, 2021). As listed at the beginning of each of these case practice audit reports, the specific purpose of these audits is to: further the development of practice, assess and evaluate practice in relation to existing legislation and the AOPSI, determine the current level of practice across a sample of records, identify barriers to providing an adequate level of service, assist in identifying training needs, and provide information for use in updating and/or amending practice standards or policy. (DAA Audit, 2021) During each of these audits, the past three years of services are reviewed with onsite data collection. When MCFD conducts an audit of a DAA, the reports indicate that the analysts select a sample size for the audit that represent that DAA’s files with a confidence interval of 90%. The sample is then judged for compliance against the AOPSI, then used as a measure of the DAA’s performance. To determine how DAA’s are doing in cultural permanency planning through their placement of youth and comprehensive care plans, an analysis was conducted of published DAA case practice audit reports from 2017 – 2021. The purpose of reviewing the past 5 years was to assess the impact of Grand Chief Ed John’s 2016 report and recommendations for Indigenous child welfare. Standards 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7 were chosen for their relevance to this topic. Each standard has a list of expectations that each DAA is analyzed for (DAA Audit, 2021). In the AOPSI and the Aboriginal Case Practice Audits, each standard describes its intent. To receive a rating of achieved, the auditors must be satisfied that sufficient efforts have been made for each category (AOSPSI, 2009; DAA Audit, 2021). Compliance descriptions for the sections analyzed for this report are listed in Table 1 as seen in the Aboriginal Case Audit Practice Reports. 34 Table 1 AOPSI Compliance Descriptions AOPSI Guardianship Practice Standard Standard 1: Preserving the identity of the child in care and providing culturally appropriate services. Standard 2: Development of a comprehensive plan of care Standard 3: Monitoring and reviewing the comprehensive plan of care Standard 6: Deciding where to place the child Standard 7: Meeting the child’s need for stability and continuity of relationships Compliance Description The social worker has preserved and promoted the cultural identity of the child in care and provided services sensitive to the child’s views, cultural heritage, and spiritual beliefs When assuming responsibility for a child in care the social worker develops a comprehensive plan of care. The care plan is completed within the required timeframes The comprehensive plan of care is monitored to determine progress towards goals, the continued safety of the child, the effectiveness of services, and/or any barrier to services. The care plan is reviewed every six months or anytime there is a change in circumstances. Efforts are made to develop the care plan with the youth, family, service providers, caregiver(s), and the Indigenous community Documented efforts were made to place the child in an out of a home living arrangement that was in accordance with section 71 of the CFCSA Documented efforts have been made to ensure there is a plan was in place to support and maintain contacts between the child/youth in care and their siblings, parents, extended families, and significant others. (BC Government, 2021) The findings of the audits were recorded, as shown in Appendix A, for assessment of compliance rates. The average percentages of compliance rates are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Average DAA Compliance Rates Report Year Combined DAA Percentage Compliant Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 6 Standard 7 2021 81% 15% 30% 86% 95% 2020 76% 16% 42% 82% 96% 2019 90% 16% 44% 97% 98% 2018 84% 8% 29% 88% 92% 35 2017 88% 42% 34% 96% 98% Compliance over 5 report years: 84% 24% 37% 91% 97% (BC Government, 2021) Standards 2 and 3 were observed to have the lowest compliance rates, despite the development of a comprehensive care plan being a legal requirement, as per MCFD policy (MCFD, 2022). The average compliance rates from 2017 – 2021 for these standards were 24% and 37% respectively. As previously stated, funding disparities are making it challenging for social workers to spend the time necessary with each youth in developing the care plan and providing comprehensive oversight. Richards (2017) in the RCYBC report noted short staffing as being another challenge that DAA’s are faced with. Therefore, short staffing and funding could be contributing to the difficulties in complying with Standards 2 and 3 in writing comprehensive care plans for Indigenous youth, as social workers are forced to prioritize their immediate well-being. It is also possible that the shortcomings of available care plan templates, as noted by Grand Chief Ed John (2016), further raise the difficulty in creating a culturally appropriate care plan. The average compliance rates for ensuring youth receive culturally appropriate services was 84% from 2017 – 2021. The lowest average rate of compliance to Standard 1 was 64% and the highest rates are 100%. It is noted in many of the reports that the DAA social workers have developed good relationships with the Indigenous communities they are working, contributing to trust and the ability to ensure youth receive culturally appropriate services, aiding the social workers in complying with Standard 1. Standards 6 and 7 have high average compliance rates, with standard 6 averaging at 91% and Standard 7 at 97%. As previously mentioned, the DAA’s are typically reported to have developed a good relationship in the communities they are situated in. The result indicates the social workers are working collaboratively with the communities and 36 engaging in family preservation to ensure the youth are maintaining this to the culture, communities, families, and extended families (BC Government, 2021). MCFD, on the other hand, does not have annual audit reports to evaluate its work with Indigenous youth or transparent standards. Any quality assurance done is performed by internal auditors, with no external policing agency. They do provide performance management reports on occasion, however, the last published report available to the public is from 2017 (MCFD, 2017). Accessing this information through the MCFD website requires foreknowledge about the information they are hoping to extract, and the hurdles to obtaining it makes the information feel less transparent. MCFD also reports and analyzes their data differently from the DAA’s, providing trends in established permanency instead of whether specific standards have been met. Additionally, permanency is based on the Western understanding with a focus on permanent and stable relationships. There was no mention made of Indigenous youth retaining cultural ties and the development of a cultural permanency plan. Instead, the focus was on family reunification, adoption, or permanent transfer of custody as per the CFCSA. This section of the government of British Columbia’s website provides some information about the status of Indigenous youth in care. The information posted shows that 13% of Indigenous youth were discharged from care to permanency, and in 2019, this percentage rose to 17.5 %. In January 2016 and August 2017 Indigenous youth discharged to care peaked twice to 18%. The lowest recorded rates were in December 2012 and September 2014 at 12%. The trends suggest that Indigenous youth are discharged to permanency at a rate of 12 – 18%. While this increased permanency implies some measure of improvement, this does not indicate how many Indigenous youth are receiving culturally appropriate placements or how many have a cultural permanency plan (BC Government, 2021). The missing or incomplete statistical information on how many Indigenous 37 youth are receiving culturally relevant placements speaks to a lack of transparency from MCFD. This also indicates that MCFD does not appear to value the need for cultural permanency, despite this being written into legislation such as the CFCSA or have anyone holding them accountable for their reporting practices. The quantitative assessment of DAA practice audits indicate that social workers are working alongside Indigenous communities to help their youth receive culturally relevant services that incorporates culturally planning while meeting their need for stability and continuity of relationships (BC Government, 2021). However, while DAA social workers have an 84% compliance rate in ensuring youth receive culturally relevant services, the have a low compliance rate in terms of developing and monitoring a comprehensive plan of care. Although developing a comprehensive and culturally relevant permanency plan or plan of care is a legal requirement of the CFCSA, this low compliance rate ties into the lack of funding, training, and resources afforded to DAA social workers, along with the too many clients in their caseload. Social workers then are doing what they can to follow legislation in a Eurocentric system that is wrought with a lack of opportunity and funding. This includes developing relationships with the communities so they can work alongside them and deliver culturally relevant services, but the challenges remain in developing a culturally relevant and comprehensive plan of care (Bennet, 2015; BC Government 2021). Gaps in Literature Among the literature there is scant research that focuses specifically on cultural permanency planning for Indigenous youth in Canada. Most of the research conducted around this topic has occurred in the four years leading up to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report’s release in 2015. Additional research has been conducted after 2015, with much of it 38 being completed by the RCYBC in some scathing reports of British Columbia’s child welfare practices. The literature highlights a lack of knowledge around how social workers are specifically working with their Indigenous youth, to help youth attain culturally relevant placement or culturally relevant permanency plans. As evident from the DAA reports from 2017 – 2021, compliance rates are relatively high. It is unknown if there was specific work done with Indigenous youth or if social workers followed a checklist of cultural requirements with formal questions that would indicate compliance. In the 2013 RCYBC report, When Talk Trumped Service, the representative wrote that a social worker was considered in compliance if they simply offered a cultural activity to an Indigenous youth such as attending a potlatch. However, there is little information found in the literature indicating what constitutes active cultural permanency planning. The gaps in the literature, then, mostly appear to centre on a lack of specific policies or frameworks to guide practice, services needed for Indigenous youth, social worker training, and how social workers are being held accountable for their work with Indigenous youth. Another major gap in literature is that there is a lack of information on MCFDs efforts on cultural permanency planning. As discussed, Western ideologies regarding the best interest of the child and the Western definition of neglect hold the forefront in conversations around child welfare. While MCFD discusses the importance of Indigenous cultural identity in their policies and through administering the CFCSA, these cultural considerations and accompanying supports should be evident in transparent reporting that holds MCFD to a high standard (James, 2020). While MCFD does receive performance management reports, it is unclear how often these are mandated to occur. There is also very little information on who conducts these reports. However, the reports do have the British Columbia government logo on them which leads one to 39 extrapolate that they are completed by an agent of the government. Other reports that are available include Annual Service Plan Reports, which are written by MCFD. These reports discuss MCFD’s objectives in working with Indigenous communities and include key highlights of work they have completed over the past reporting year. The challenge is that while the reports are written from a strengths-focused perspective, they do not address weaknesses in MCFD performance as the DAA Audit reports are required to. Implications for Social Work As social workers, we play an integral role in advocating for social justice from an anti oppressive, decolonizing, and anticolonial framework. We can do so through working from the SST perspective to inform us of the macro, mezzo, and micro systems that interact with social workers, Indigenous youth, and their families by advocating for systemic change. Since legislation is written by the governing authorities, the legislation and its governing authorities can be viewed as a macro entity or system. The CFCSA is a tool that social workers can use to ensure that Indigenous peoples and communities receive supports and permanency planning that are culturally relevant. However, historically this system has incurred, and continues to incur, much harm on Indigenous populations at the macro, mezzo, and micro levels, meaning that social workers have an ethical obligation and responsibility role to advocate for clarity in interpreting and applying the legislation. The lack of accountability and compliance for delivering culturally relevant placements and supports can also be linked to educational institutions, as well as the BC College of Social Workers and MCFD responsible for the professional oversight of social work. If social work as a profession is to truly work from an anti oppressive lens, then governing bodies would not only ensure the social workers are adequately prepared through education, held accountable to a high 40 standard of practice, and adequately supported in their work, but also ensure that social workers adhere to legislation and play a reconciliatory role in the work with Indigenous communities by ensuring Indigenous youth receive culturally appropriate permanency plans and supports. Developing a clear sense of what is currently completed by MCFD for Indigenous youth through audits and accurate reporting can create some transparency and ensure there is equity in practice. Having the same process in place for auditing or evaluating how DAA’s and MCFD work with Indigenous youth can also be helpful in reducing the colonial hierarchal power structures. The dominant themes in the literature indicate that social work institutions continue to fail in delivering adequate training, funding, and resources while expecting social workers to carry a substantial caseload. The social work field can be seen as having a responsibility to address this at the institutional levels such as education, government, and regulatory bodies through advocacy work. As noted in the research, lack of training begins within the postsecondary education institutions that have the responsibility of educating future social workers. These educational institutions are founded on and steeped within the Eurocentric colonial worldview which perpetuates this lack of training (Bennet 2015, Blackstock, 2019; Sinclair 2016). As a result, social work graduates are inadequately prepared for their work within the child welfare system where Indigenous youth remain overrepresented in care. At the agency level, a lack of funding and resources exasperates the lack of training opportunities afforded to social work practitioners. The result of this also is the inability to carry out adequate social justice work from an anti-oppressive and anti-colonial framework to ensure legislation is correctly interpreted to provide culturally relevant permanency options to Indigenous youth and their communities. Finally, should opportunities to pursue further education present itself, social workers have such a heavy caseload, that attending training will only serve to put them further 41 behind. Assessing these dominant impacts on social work practice in Indigenous communities, from an SST perspective, indicates that there are systemic issues that must be addressed at the macro, mezzo and micro levels. Governments, government policy and legislation, education intuitions, and a social workers Eurocentric worldview are examples of flawed socio-ecological systems that interact with Indigenous communities. These must be addressed for social workers to truly integrate culturally relevant practice in their day-to-day work through building awareness and advocacy work. Conclusion Colonization, residential schools, and child welfare agencies continue to impact the health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples and communities. The Indian Act continues to impact Indigenous communities and the decisions made on their behalf. The systemic inequities and prevailing Eurocentric views regarding what is in the best interests of the child also continue to create challenges for Indigenous youth and their communities. There is a severe lack of culturally relevant higher education requirements for social workers considering the high numbers of Indigenous children and youth in care. DAA’s have been established as a response to the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in foster care and to work alongside Indigenous communities in ensuring more culturally relevant care is provided. However, these agencies continue to be faced with a lack of funding as a result of Directive 20-1. This lack of funding, training, and resources, along with high caseloads, continues to provide substantial challenges in delivering effective services to Indigenous communities and is essentially a modern form of colonial child welfare practice (John, 2016; Richards, 2017). MCFD and DAAs play a significant role in working alongside Indigenous communities and their youth. Permanency planning, such as through the development of a culturally relevant 42 permanency plan and comprehensive care plans, is a major legal component of the work required to develop the care plan. Unfortunately, templates provided to DAAs to form these plans often lack the inclusion of cultural factors. While DAA’s appear to be fulfilling this significant role to some degree, and are compelled to complete care plans by MCFD, it remains unknown how MCFD social workers are doing in creating cultural permanency plans with their Indigenous youth. The CFCSA informs much of this work, along with MCFD policies, APPF, and AOPSI. While the CFCSA was recently revised and published in 2020, to include relevant Indigenous perspectives, it is unknown how this is being practiced at MCFD. Despite these revisions, the dominant Western perspectives on what is considered the best interest of the child prevails in social work practice, due to legislative precedence set by Judge Wilson minimizing the importance of cultural background and heritage under nuclear family bonds (Sinclair, 2016). Eurocentric ideologies also inform these practices along with individualistic interpretations of neglect, particularly if the social worker makes no considerations of the various systems that are or have impacted an Indigenous family (Bernstein, 2000; de Finney & di Tomasso; John, 2016; Quinn, 2020). Utilizing the CFCSA and approaching issues of neglect and best interests of a child through legislation and policies can be viewed as problematic as it focuses on the deficits of the individual, rather than the strengths of a community. However, there appears to be some progress towards collaborating with Indigenous communities through the legislation and policies which is playing out in practice, as evidenced through the DAA audits. Within the literature, there is a consensus that it is vital for youth to have an attachment to a guardian to increase their resiliency after aging out of care. Increased permanency reduces the stresses felt by the youth, reducing uncertainty (Martin & Charlesworth, 2020). For a child or youth in care, the colonial view is that permanence can only be attained by connecting strongly 43 with a primary caregiver, most commonly a mother, who tends to their needs and acts as a bridge to facilitate wider connections (Bennett, 2015). The goals for permanency in this setting are focused on finding a place to live, learning life skills, and finding a job or attending programming. These goals stem from an individualist culture where a successful person is established and is a complete self, relative to the society around them (Hammack, 2015, cited in Quinn, 2015). While these goals may be necessary to all youth in care, aspects of cultural permanency, cultural identity, and spirituality are often emphasized as having more importance to establishing successful permanency for Indigenous youth. For Indigenous peoples and communities, the concept of cultural permanency refers to maintaining ties with the culture and community. There is also an emphasis on collectivism as an integral aspect of their cultures and lives in those decisions that affect the entire community (Quinn, 2015). Permanency planning for Indigenous youth then is not only about the youth as an individual but also focuses on the concept of the circle to help communities heal from the generations lost to colonial policies and ensure that the circle will be completed with Indigenous youth either remaining in their communities or retaining ties to their culture (de Finney & di Tomasso, 2015). A meaningful way to ensure that Indigenous youth remain culturally connected and establish cultural permanency is through ensuring youth receive culturally relevant services. This requires social workers to collaborate with Indigenous communities, as per the Child, Family, and Community Services Act, rather than making decisions for Indigenous youth. Equitable and transparent applications of standards of care by social workers should be the norm, but are hampered by conflicting worldviews, systemic racism, and trauma both past and present. Connectedness is often lost through the layers of established hierarchy. 44 The road towards providing culturally appropriate permanency requires examination of social work, to fully understand the flaws and merits of the various systems that impact the profession. Agencies, as groups of willing practitioners, can allocate what resources they possess to support both their constituents and the communities they serve. Finally, governing bodies can work towards applying consistent policies that foster inclusion and ways of seeing that include Indigenous worldviews, dismantling colonial oppression that has permeated the field of social work. 45 Appendix A Aboriginal Case Practice Audits Report Year and DAA Percentage Compliant Standa rd 1a Standa rd 2b Standa rd 3c Standa rd 6d Standa rd 7e 2021 overall compliance: Lalum'utul'Smun'e em Child and Family Services 64% 0% 11% 78% 90% Métis Family Services 99% 36% 52% 94% 100% Nisga’a Child and Family Services 100% 80% 63% 100% 100% USMA NUUCHAH-NULTH Family and Child Services 75% 14% 27% 71% 92% NIL/TU, O Child, and Family Services Society 85% 0% 80% 96% 100% Fraser Valley Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society 68% 11% 35% 82% 97% Carrier Sekani Family Services 98% 0% 79% 100% 98% Knucwentwecw Society 61% 6% 14% 91% 97% 2020 overall compliance: 2019 overall compliance: a Standard 1: Preserving the identity of the child in care and providing culturally appropriate services Standard 2: Development of a comprehensive plan of care c Standard 3: Monitoring and reviewing the comprehensive plan of care d Standard 6: Deciding where to place the child e Standard 7: Meeting the child’s need for stability and continuity of relationships b 46 Nlha’7kapmx Child & Family Services Society 100% 0% 15% 100% 100% Northwest InterNation FCSS 96% NA 22% 100% 100% Scw'exmx CFS 96% 100% 32% 96% 96% Ktunaxa Kinbasket Child & Family Services Society 68% 8% 17% 76% 85% Nezul Be Hunuyeh Child and Family Services Society 100% 0% 39% 100% 100% Surrounded by Cedar 98% 100% 18% 100% 100% Ayas Men Child & Family Services 100% 50% 95% 100% 100% Métis Family Services 84% 70% 28% 100% 100% Nisga’a Child & Family Services 100% 0% 22% 100% 100% Nlha’7kapmx Child & Family Services Society 77% 0% 24% 90% 100% Fraser Valley Aboriginal Child & Family Services Society 77% 0% 28% 95% 95% Kwumut Lelum Child and Family Services Society 89% 42% 32% 91% 93% Secwepemc Child & Family Services 84% 43% 22% 95% 98% 2018 overall compliance: 2017 overall compliance: (BC Government, 2021) 47 References AFN. (2021). Jordan’s Principle. https://www.afn.ca/policy-sectors/social-secretariat/jordansprinciple/ AOPSI. (2005). Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/indigenouspeople/child-family-development/aopsi_practice_standards.pdf AOPSI. (2009). Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/indigenouspeople/child-family-development/aopsi_operational_standards.pdf APPF. (2016). Aboriginal Policy and Practice Framework in British Columbia: A pathway towards restorative policy and practice that supports and honours aboriginal peoples’ systems of caring, nurturing children and resiliency. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/family-and-social-supports/indigenouscfd/abframework.pdf Arneil, B. (2018). Domestic colonies in Canada: Rethinking the definition of colony. Canadian Journal of Political Science = Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 51(3), 497–519. Assembly of First Nations. (2018). Accessing Jordan's Principle: A resource for First Nations parents, caregivers, families and communities. https://www.afn.ca/uploads/Social_Development/Jordan%27s%20Principle%20Handboo k%202019_en.pdf Auger, A. (2012). Moving Toward Reconciliation in Indigenous Child Welfare. Child Welfare, 91(3), 31–45. 48 BC Government. (2021). Child Protection Services in BC. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/public-safety/protecting-children BC Government. (2021). Delegated Aboriginal Agencies in BC BC Government. (2021). Delegation Process. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/familysocial-supports/data-monitoring-quality-assurance/reportingmonitoring/accountability/delegated-aboriginal-agencies/delegation-process Bennett, K. (2015). Cultural permanence for Indigenous children and youth: Reflections from a Delegated Aboriginal Agency in British Columbia. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 10(1), 99-115. Bennett, M., Blackstock, C., & De La Ronde, R. (2005). A literature review and annotated bibliography on aspects of Aboriginal child welfare in Canada. [electronic resource] (2nd ed.). First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada. Bernstein, H. (2000). Colonialism, Capitalism, Development. In Allen, T. and Thomas, A. (Ed.) Poverty and development into the 21st century (Vol. 1, pp. 242). Oxford University Press. Blackstock, C. (2019). The Occasional Evil of Angels: Learning From the Experiences of Aboriginal Peoples and Social Work. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 14(1), 137– 152. https://doi-org.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/10.7202/1071292ar CFCSA. (2020). Child, Family and Community Services Act. BC Government https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96046_01 de Finney, S., & di Tomasso, L. (2015). Creating places of belonging: Expanding notions of permanency with Indigenous youth in care. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 10(1), 63-85. 49 Government of BC. (2021) Aboriginal Case Practice Audits. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/data-monitoring-qualityassurance/reporting-monitoring/accountability/aboriginal-case-practice-audits Holyk, T., & Harder, H. G. (2016). Aboriginal child welfare in British Columbia and unequal power relations: Acritical discourse analysis/La protection des enfants autochtones en Colombie-Britannique et les rapports de force inegaux: une analyse du discours critique. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 74, 82. Indian Act. (1985). Indian Act. Government of Canada. https://www.lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/page-1.html Indigenous Child Welfare Research Network. (2011). Honouring our caretaking traditions: A forum on custom Indigenous adoptions. Paper presented at Honouring Our Caretaking Traditions: A Forum on Custom Indigenous Adoptions, Victoria, BC, Nov 18–19 Jean-Francois Constant, & Michel Ducharme. (2009). Liberalism and Hegemony : Debating the Canadian Liberal Revolution. University of Toronto Press. John, E. (2016). Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification–from Root Causes to Root Solutions : A Report on Indigenous Child Welfare in British Columbia. British Columbia. Johnstone, M., & Lee, E. (2020). Shaping Canadian citizens: A historical study of Canadian multiculturalism and social work during the period from 1900 to 1999. International Journal of Social Welfare, 29(1), 71–82. https://doiorg.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/10.1111/ijsw.12379 Joseph, B. (2018). 21 things you may not know about the Indian Act: Helping Canadians make reconciliation with Indigenous peoples a reality. Indigenous Relations Press 50 Joseph, B., & Joseph, C. F. (2019). Indigenous relations: Insights, tips, & suggestions to make reconciliation a reality. Indigenous Relations Press. Koltai, A. (2014). What is the difference between must and should? https://www.myenglishteacher.eu/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-must-and-should/ Kozlowski, A., Sinha, V., Hoey, S., & Lucas, L. (2012). First Nations welfare in British Columbia (2011). Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal. https://cwrp.ca/informationsheet/first-nations-child-welfare-british-columbia-2011 Laskin, R. (2021). Expanding the Reach of Gladue: Exploring the Use of Gladue Reports in Child Protection. Appeal: Review of Current Law & Law Reform, 26, 25–50. Mackenzie, K. (2020). Unsettling white settler child and youth care pedagogy and practice: Discourses on working in colonial violence and racism. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 11(3), 80-107. https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs113202019701 Manuel, M. D. (2018). Strengthening connections to culture and cultural identity of Indigenous children and youth in care. University of the Fraser Valley. Martin, S., & Charlesworth, J. (2020). A Parent’s Duty: Government’s Obligation to Youth Transitioning into Adulthood. Representative for Children and Youth. MCFD. (2017). Performance Management Report. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/familyand-social-supports/services-supports-for-parents-with-young-children/reportingmonitoring/00-public-ministry-reports/volume_9_mar_2017.pdf MCFD. (2021). Annual Service Plan Report. https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/Annual_Reports/2020_2021/pdf/ministry/cfd.pdf MCFD. (2022). Operational Child Welfare Policy. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/familyand-social-supports/policies/cf_5_children_youth_in_care.pdf 51 McKenzie, H. A., Varcoe, C., Browne, A. J., & Day, L. (2016). Disrupting the continuities among residential schools, the sixties scoop, and child welfare: An analysis of colonial and neocolonial discourses. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 7(2) doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2016.7.2.4 Mennen, F. E., & O’Keefe, M. (2005). Informed decisions in child welfare: the use of attachment theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(6), 577–593. NVIT. (2022). Bachelor of social work. Nicola Valley Institute of Technology. https://www.nvit.ca/bachelor-of-social-work/program.aspx#programOverview Paul, J. (2016). Evaluation of Child Protection in Federalist Countries: Recommendations for Increasing Effectiveness and Re-establishing Self-Determination Within Indigenous Communities. Journal of Policy Practice, 15(3), 188–211. https://doiorg.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/10.1080/15588742.2015.1044685 Quinn, A. (2020). Nurturing identity among Indigenous youth in care. Child & Youth Services, 41(1), 83-104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0145935X.2019.1656063 Raphael, D., Curry-Stevens, A., & Bryant, T. (2008). Barriers to addressing the social determinants of health: Insights from the Canadian experience. Health Policy, 88(2–3), 222–235. https://doi-org.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.03.015 RCYBC. (2013). When talk trumped service: A decade of lost opportunity for Aboriginal children and youth in BC. Representative for Children and Youth. https://rcybc.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/when_talk_trumped_service.pdf RCYBC. (2014). Lost in the shadows: How a lack of help meant a loss of hope for one First Nations girl. Representative for Children and Youth. https://rcybc.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/rcy_lost-in-the-shadows_forweb_17feb.pdf 52 RCYBC. (2019). BC Adoptions & Permanency Options Update. Representative for Children and Youth. https://rcybc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/rcy_adoptionupdate-finalaug2019_0.pdf Richard, B. (2017). Delegated Aboriginal Agencies: How Resourcing Affects Service Delivery. Representative for Children and Youth. https://www-deslibrisca.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/ID/10089978 Rousseau, J. (2015). The elusive promise of reconciliation in British Columbia child welfare: Aboriginal perspectives and wisdom from within the BC Ministry of Children and Family Development. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 10(2), 44–61. Simard, E. (2019). Culturally restorative child welfare practice: A special emphasis on cultural attachment theory. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 14(1), 56-80. Simard, E., & Blight, S. (2011). Developing a culturally restorative approach to Aboriginal child and youth development: Transitions to adulthood. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 6(1), 28-55. Sinclair, R. (2016). The Indigenous child removal system in Canada: An examination of legal decision - making and racial bias. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 11(2), 8–18. Stangeland, J., & Walsh, C. (2013). Defining permanency for Aboriginal youth in care. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 8(2), 24-39. Swakum James, K. (2020). Aged-out Indigenous children & youth from the child welfare system. Retrieved from https://ufv.arcabc.ca/islandora/object/ufv%3A32578 Thompson, S. A. (2020). Indigenous child welfare in British Columbia: training and practice shifts in child protection. University of the Fraser Valley. 53 Tremblett, et al. (2021). British Columbia child welfare services information sheet. Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal. Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (2015). Turth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to action. Truth and Reconciliation Commission. https://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf Walmsley, C. (2019). Ideas and social policy. In Harding, R., Jeyapal, D. (Ed.) Canadian social policy for social workers (Vol. 1, pp. 42-44). Oxford University Press. UNBC. (2022). BSW: Indigenous Specialization. University of Northern British Columbia. https://www2.unbc.ca/social-work/bsw-indigenous-specialization UVIC. (2022). BSW specializations: Indigenous. University of Victoria. https://www.uvic.ca/hsd/socialwork/future/bsw/special/indspec/index.php