Child and Family Service Standards in First Nations: An Action Research Project.

Abstract

Decentralized, community-based child and family services have been provided by First Nations agencies since the mid-1980s. Attention has recently been focused on the development of culturally specific standards of practice that can become the basis for culturally appropriate services and First Nations legislation in child welfare. This article summarizes findings from a participatory research process conducted in eight Manitoba First Nations. Results support important differences concerning the causality of child welfare problems, the definition of key child welfare concepts, and the place of cultural values and practices in intervention. It is also significant that many of the views about good child welfare practice are similar to those in mainstream society.Child welfare services to Manitoba First Nations have historically been characterized by political neglect, paternalism, and institutional colonialism. The result of these policies has been a disproportionate number of First Nations(*) children in care, limited provision of family services, and the permanent loss of a large number of children from their families, communities, and culture [Johnston 1983; Kimelman 1985]. Between 1966 and 1981, 14 First Nations in southwestern Manitoba received services, including cross-cultural adoption and long-term family foster care in non-Aboriginal communities, from three Children's Aid Societies under agreements signed with the federal and provincial levels of government. For the remaining 45 First Nations in the province, statutory child protection services, consisting primarily of long-term placement outside the community and culture, were provided only when the life of a child was at serious risk.By the mid-1970s, the First Nations leadership began to mobilize in response to the escalating loss of their children. This advocacy was also an expression of growing aspirations for self-determination, including increased control over social services in their communities. Between 1976 and 1979, nine First Nations entered into bilateral funding arrangements with the federal government to deliver nonstatutory child welfare services. In 1980, a tripartite working group recommended an approach to service delivery for First Nations that included options ranging from service contracting to complete administrative control Report of the Indian Child Welfare Subcommittee 1980]. The provincial association of First Nations took a leadership role within the tripartite committee in designing a $24 million proposal for the delivery of child and family services by First Nations authorities, and negotiating a master tripartite agreement in 1982. This agreement provided for the extension of child welfare services under provincial legislation and standards to First Nations, federal funding for the cost of services, and the delivery of services by agencies administered and controlled by First Nations.Fully mandated First Nations child welfare services have been in place throughout Manitoba since the mid-1980s. In the Manitoba model, regional agencies, generally organized under Tribal Council authorities, provide a comprehensive range of child welfare and family support services using a decentralized, community-based service model. Governance structures include an agency board composed of representatives from participating communities, and local child and family service committees in each community. Services are usually provided by a combination of community-based staff members, who provide a broad range of generic services, and regionally based supervisory and specialist staff.Although First Nations agencies have some autonomy over agency-specific policy development, provincial jurisdiction over legislation and standards and related requirements for accountability have been contentious issues. For most First Nations, the initial acceptance of these arrangements is regarded as an interim measure, and the long-term goal of distinct standards and legislation has remained an important priority. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.