university of calgary - Alberta College of Social Workers

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Decolonizing Home Assessment Practice at the Kitchen Table:

A Thematic Analysis Identifying the Crucial Elements in the Assessment of Kinship

Caregivers

by

Julie Mann-Johnson

A THESIS

SUMBITTED TO THE GRADUATE PROGRAM

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN SOCIAL WORK

EDMONTON, ALBERTA

APRIL 2016

Crucial Elements of Kinship Care Home Assessment

ii

Abstract

Literature suggests that children placed in kinship care achieve positive

outcomes. Literature also suggests the experience for kinship caregivers is very different

from adoption and foster care; however assessment practice and policy do not reflect

these unique elements. Using thematic analysis of secondary qualitative data, this study

discusses crucial elements required for kinship care home assessments in Alberta. These

elements which influence the practitioner, process, policy, legislation and systemic issues

can then be used to inform kinship home assessment practice, policy and legislation. By

using secondary data analysis, this study endeavored to honour the voices of people who

have already shared their perspectives at public consultations and information gathering

events sponsored by the Government of Alberta. An anti-colonizing lens and critical

ecological framework ground this research in an approach that is sensitive to the impacts

of structural colonization on Indigenous children and families through child welfare

practice, policy and legislation.


iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to start by acknowledging the children, youth and families that I

have been honoured to work with throughout my career. I have been blessed to be

a part of their journey and they have transformed mine. Caring for children is a

sacred gift, and kinship caregivers are unique and special gifts for the children they

care for and love. Like all of us, these families want the best for the children whom

they care about deeply.

My family are also my gift. My daughters transform me daily and were

cheerleaders throughout my process. Their kind-hearted nature gives me an

energetic and hopeful lens in this work. My loving and encouraging husband helped

me get through this marathon in an endless manner of emotional ways but also

often as IT support and editor! My mom first instilled the importance of lifelong

learning for me helped me right along the journey through transcription. My wise

dad has always grounded me to how family and community worked together to

care for kids back in the day along the shores of the Red River.

My thesis sisters and faculty members at the Faculty of Social Work listened

endlessly to my ideas that sometimes led to dead ends and others that stuck. The

support and sense of community within the faculty is a powerful force.

I thank my committee for sharing their wisdom and expertise to strengthen

my work. Anne-Marie, my thesis supervisor listened and helped filter a TON of

ideas in this journey. Thank you for keeping me focused.

I acknowledge these members of my kin network and the many others.


iv

Table of Contents: Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv Introduction 1 Locating Myself 1 What is Kinship Care 3 Research Question 3 Literature Review 5 Colonization and Child Welfare 6 The Meaning and Historical Development of Kinship Care 9 Kinship Care Internationally 11 Kinship Care in Indigenous Communities 12 Benefits of Placement in Kinship Care 13 Challenges in Kinship Care Practice 16 Assessing Kinship Homes 22 Alternatives in Kinship Care Home Assessment 28 Conclusion 32 Home Assessment Policy and Practice – Various Jurisdictions 33 Home Assessment in Alberta 33 Kinship Home Assessment in Other Jurisdictions 35 Methodology 39 Theoretical Framework 39 Secondary Data Analysis 41 Thematic Analysis 47 Rigour 50 Data Analysis 52 Findings 59 Assessor Characteristics 62 Important Areas to Address 65 Home Assessment Process 70 Safety 75 Policy and Legislated Requirements 77 Systemic 81 Discussion 87 Implications for Practice 93 Limitations of the Study 96 My Journey 99 References 101 Appendix A 113 Appendix B 117 Appendix C 119 Appendix D 121 Appendix E 122


1

Introduction

Locating myself

I have been a social worker in Alberta for 18 years. Most of my practice has been

in the field of child intervention and now in the area of policy and program development

for child intervention. For a number of years I worked primarily as a Home Assessment

writer completing home assessments on families who were applying as adoptive, foster

or kinship parents. Kinship care is a formal placement for children in care with family or

someone who they have a significant relationship with. I was always keenly interested in

kinship care assessments and these assessments would make me always consider my

own kinship networks. I am a mother, step-mother, wife, auntie, cousin, daughter, sister,

niece, and friend. With these roles I have an extensive kin network of caregivers for my

children, but also of children that I could potentially be a caregiver for, and have. I have

first-hand knowledge of the unique joys and challenges of kinship care. In keeping with

anti-oppressive practice, I would like to note my social location. I am a white woman,

raised in rural, northern Alberta but living in urban setting for most of my adult life.

In my career I have worked with many Indigenous families and communities and

observed the unique experiences had by this population within our system. Canada’s

Child Welfare system has a long history of colonizing Indigenous people (Strega &

Carrier, 2015; Ing, 2006; Hart, 2002). This tragic legacy started with the Residential

Schools, through to the sixties scoop and to the current state which includes a significant

over representation of Indigenous children in care. Today in Alberta, 69% of children in

care are Aboriginal (Human Services, 2015), yet Aboriginal people represent only 6% of

the provincial population (Government of Canada, 2011). Since a strong majority of


2

children in care are Indigenous, child welfare practices and policies impact the

Indigenous community more than any other ethnic group. As a result, this analysis will

focus particularly on Indigenous children and families.

First Nation people place great significance on familial relationships and

relatedness (Hart, 2002; Bodor, Makokis & Friesen, 2014). Children are considered

sacred beings and highly respected as gifts from the spirit world (Bodor et al, 2014).

Caregiving relationships are fluid and it is both the parents’ and community’s

responsibility to provide each child the best opportunities to develop. Traditionally,

Indigenous families and communities have cared for each other this way (Greenwood &

De Leeuw, 2006). Colonization, however, disrupted these relationships when children

were removed and re-educated through the institutions of colonizers (Hart, 2002).

Punitive-based and rigid systems of child rearing were forced on First Nation people and

misaligned with their traditional beliefs (Bodor et al, 2014). Because of these traditional

beliefs, it was common practice in the First Nation community for kin to care for

children when biological parents were unable to do so.

What is kinship care?

When children come into the care of child welfare, they are placed formally in

various caregiving arrangements. They could be placed in foster care, which is

temporary, family based care (Alberta Human Services, 2016). These families are

typically unknown to the child or family. Children or youth could also be placed in

group or residential care (Alberta Human Services, 2016). These settings range from

being community-based to more institutional.


3

Kinship care is another option for placement. Kinship care in Alberta conforms to

the policy definition of the Government of Alberta, Ministry of Human Services and is

considered to be the “placing of a child with a caregiver who is an extended family

member of a child, or a person who has a significant relationship with the child, or is a

member of the child’s cultural community (Ministry of Human Services, 2014, 2.0).

Many other jurisdictions, such as England (Selwyn & Nandy, 2014) and Ontario

(Brisebois, Kernsmith, Carcone, 2013) adopt a similar operational definition. Currently

in Alberta, Kinship care is the preferred placement option recognizing that placement

with family or community members ensures the strongest possible connection for that

child to their culture and community (Alberta Human Services, 2016).

Research Question

Most western, government sponsored child welfare systems, including Alberta’s,

have only recently recognized kinship care as a legitimate placement option

(Government of Alberta, 2009). Once kinship care was recognized as a formal

placement option by most child welfare jurisdictions, the government’s response was to

apply the same policies and processes as other placement resources. Currently, in

Alberta, home study methods used in the kinship care program utilize the same

approaches and tools used for foster care and adoption, otherwise known as stranger

care. This is problematic for a number of reasons: current practices do not recognize

traditional kin network practices amongst Indigenous people; they do not highlight the

inherent strengths in children being cared for by family and community; and they fail to

recognize structural challenges such as poverty, inadequate housing, and the racism

faced by many of these families.


4

The Alberta Government has a legislated responsibility to ensure the survival,

security, and development of all children (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act,

2004). For children under the care and guardianship of the province, the Government

becomes the parent and as such must ensure the survival, security, and development of

those children. The Alberta Government therefore is compelled to ensure caregiving

arrangements are safe and nurturing. However, by applying the same practices and

policies of other non-kin placement resources to kinship care, it could be said that

governments have continued a practice of colonialism through the child welfare system.

There has been inadequate recognition that kinship providers want what is best for their

children.

With the stated assumptions that the current situation for kinship care providers is

inadequate and that current practice inadvertently excludes or punishes potential kinship

caregivers, this project asks “what are the crucial elements required for Kinship

caregiver assessments in Alberta?” In pursuit of this question, I have employed a

secondary analysis of previously collected data from community consultations and other

dialogues that the government of Alberta has conducted in good faith, in order to answer

this question.


5

Literature Review

Assessing potential kinship caregivers is a complex process. In order to provide a

thorough understanding of kinship care, this literature review covers issues related to the

definition and historical development of kinship care, international experiences of

kinship care, barriers and challenges of kinship care, benefits of kinship care, and

assessment practices in kinship care.

There has been an explosion in research into kinship care in recent years. This

literature review includes international research into these issues with a general focus on

research from the past decade. Older studies were included if they were considered to

have made lasting contributions to the field and/or have formed the basis of other

investigations, or if they relate specifically to assessment of caregivers. There is limited

research specifically into the assessment of kinship caregivers, but a significant amount

that speaks to the experience of kinship care.

In addition to government sponsored and supported kinship care placements,

there are situations where families may be caring for kin informally and without

significant supports. These informal kinship care situations are still occurring in

situations where a child is not considered to be in government care and the parents still

remain the only guardians. These are situations where, for example, a parent may

directly ask a grandparent, other relative, or friend to care for their child and no

government authority is involved. The literature refers to these arrangements as informal

kinship. While this practice is a significant area, this writing will not explore informal

kinship. The focus of this overall study is to address the assessment of formal kinship

care.


6

Also not included in this literature review are studies and theoretical texts that

speak to the experience of specific types of kin. For example, there is literature that

speaks to the experience of grandparents or siblings as kinship caregivers. While these

experiences are significant within the general field of kinship care, my investigation in

interested in more of a general experience of kinship care.

Colonization and Child Welfare

In considering any aspect of child welfare practice, it is important to understand

the colonizing impacts of legislation and policy. Since the time of first contact with

Europeans, Indigenous people in Canada have experienced significant losses

including land, culture, children and language (Strega & Carriere, 2015).

Starting in the sixteenth century (Ing, 2006) and formalized in 1876

through the Indian Act (Greenwood & DeLeeuw, 2006), Indian residential

schools were established and typically operated by various religious organizations. With

a goal of cultural assimilation, these institutions contributed to severed ties between

children and their families, children were forbidden to speak their First Nations

languages, and they suffered a number of other atrocities and indignities (Ing, 2006).

The impact of the residential schools has been generational. Future generations felt the

impacts as the children placed in residential schools did not encounter “healthy parental

role models and, as adults, frequently had diminished capacity to care for their own

children.” (Trocmé, Knoke, Blackstock, 2004, 578).

The current generation continues to feel these affects. This is not surprising

when you consider that the last of these schools closed in the mid-1990’s, even though

the Federal Government started to close these institutions in the 1950’s (Truth and


7

Reconciliation Commission of Canada(TRC), 2012). Residential schools have been

identified as the cause of multi-generational dysfunction in First Nations communities as

individuals struggle to cope with the trauma from the loss of community, culture, and

family (Blackstock, 2004; TRC, 2012). The attempt to eradicate Indigenous culture, left

children who attended these schools ashamed of themselves and their families (Ing,

2006) and challenged to pass on cultural connection and pride. Long term detrimental

effects have been passed on to the children of those survivors of residential school.

These children and subsequent generations have been “deprived of learning and knowing

the positive and beautiful things about their culture” (Ing, 2006).

In 1951, an amendment to the Indian Act made all provincial and territorial laws

applicable on reserve. This meant that child protections services delivered to individuals

and families living on reserves became a provincial or territorial responsibility. With this

change in legislation, non-indigenous social workers began to enter reserves to

investigate cases of perceived child maltreatment, and in many cases apprehended the

child (Strega & Carriere, 2012). These services were often delivered by social workers

“who had little or no knowledge about colonization and residential schools who often

mistook symptoms of systemic discrimination as parental failure” (Blackstock, 2011, p.

188). In 1951, the percentage of Indigenous children in care was 1 percent, while at the

end of the 1960’s this percentage was between 30-40%. This rapid increase in the

apprehension rate of Indigenous children became known as the “sixties-scoop” (Strega

& Carriere, 2012).

Indigenous children continue to enter government care at rates vastly

disproportionate to the rest of the population. As indicated previously, 69% of the


8

children in government care in Alberta are Indigenous (Human Services, 2015). In some

parts of the country, rates of Indigenous children in care are higher than at the height of

the “sixties scoop”. The term “millennium scoop” (Beaucage, 2011) was coined to

describe the continuing disproportionate rates of substantiated investigations with

Indigenous children and families compared non-indigenous children and families (Sinha

et al., 2011).

First Nation communities and other Aboriginal advocates lobbied government for

control over the welfare of their children and families (Blackstock, 2011). In response to

these efforts and in a attempt to acknowledge the effects of colonialism, provincial and

territorial statutes began to mandate consultation with First Nations for case planning and

prior to permanency planning for a First Nation child (Child, Youth and Family

Enhancement Act, 2004; Trocmé et al. 2004). More importantly was the development

by the Federal Government through recognition of First Nation child and family services

agencies beginning in the early 1990’s through what has been termed Directive 20-1.

Directive 20-1 established a funding formula which allowed First Nation communities to

delivery child welfare services within their communities (Singha et al, 2011). However,

complicated and often inadequate funding formulas and jurisdictional challenges resulted

in limited capacity and other structural challenges. “The [First Nation child and family

services] agencies must wear the straightjackets of provincial legislation and federal

government funding regimes that are often not culturally appropriate and are rarely

grounded in research evidence relevant to First Nations” (Blackstock, 2011, p. 188). In

practice, First Nations have little autonomy in their child and family services due to strict

administrative guidelines.


9

The Meaning and Historical Development of Kinship Care

Historically, it was common for relatives to care for children when biological

parents were unable to do so. However, western child welfare systems have only recently

recognized kinship care as a legitimate placement option (Farmer, 2009; Leos-Urbel,

Bess, Geen, 2002). As a result the practice of kinship care has begun to expand

significantly in recent years.

The formal use of kinship homes in Alberta began with the proclamation of the

Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act in 2004, which mandated the inclusion of

family, and significant others as potential placement options considered for a child who

is coming into the care of the government. (Government of Alberta, 2009). Alberta was

in line with many other jurisdictions that began to consider family and those with other

significant relationships to provide day-to-day care in situations where parents were

unable to, and the government had become responsible to ensure the needs of these

children were being met.

Ontario, for example, recognized and adopted a policy mandating child welfare

agencies to explore potential placements with a relative, extended family member, or a

member of the child’s community upon removal from the child’s home (Brisebois,

Kernsmith & Carcone, 2013). This shift came in 2006 with the passing of Bill 210

which highlighted the importance of seeking relatives for placement for children in care,

but at the same time emphasized the need to ensure the safety of children placed with

relatives. Similar to foster care, safety standards were adopted for kinship caregivers

including criminal record checks and a review of child welfare history (Brisebois et al.,


10

2013). These standards resulted in complications for a system that often requires

placement decisions to be made quickly. For example a lack of clarity existed

concerning how to make decisions when potential kinship caregivers had a criminal or

child welfare history. This challenge was unique to kinship caregivers as foster parents

were pre-screened and awaited children to be placed in their care when required.

Kinship caregivers, however, generally respond to crisis and urgent need for placement.

Research trends in kinship care have followed a timeline similar to its growing

use in practice. O’Brien identifies three periods or phases in kinship care research. Early

studies incorporated kinship care into research of general foster care practices. In the

1990’s research shifted into practice and policy development as many jurisdictions were

implementing specific policies and legislation regarding kinship care. Since the late

1990’s the emphasis, in both qualitative and quantitative research, has been on

comparing the experiences of kinship and non-kin placements (2012).

In the early 2000’s governing authorities struggled to adapt policies and approval

processes developed for traditional foster care to fit the needs of this evolving and

increasingly popular kinship care alternative (Leos-Urbel et al, 2002). This approach

failed to bring clarity to the field. According to Selwyn and Nandy (2014) the use of

kinship care involves considerable legal complexities. The rapid expansion in use of this

practice has been confusing for both the general public and for social workers. This

confusion extends to unclear definitions and boundaries between different types of

kinship care, variances in levels of support, access to information, and rules regarding

assessment, licensing, and financial compensation. In many jurisdictions, this policy


11

confusion has created structural barriers to kinship care. These structural barriers will be

discussed more specifically.

Kinship Care Internationally

Internationally, developments in kinship care practices have occurred in countries

such as Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Holland, Sweden, India, Poland, the United

Kingdom, and the United States. In the United States, the use of kinship care drastically

increased in the late 1980’s and 1990’s due to an increase of children requiring out of

home placements and a shortage of non-kin foster care (Leos-Urbel, Bess & Geen,

2002). Along with this operational need to access kinship homes was an attitude shift

resulting from federal and state court rulings that recognized the rights of relatives to act

as foster parents and to be financially compensated (Leos-Urbel et al., 2002). Also

critical to the American expanded use of kinship care in the United States was the Indian

Child Welfare Act of 1978, which stated that Native American children should be placed

“near their home and with their extended family if possible” (Leos-Urbel et al., 2002, p.

40). In 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act provided a tentative endorsement of

the use of kinship care by stating that “a fit and willing relative” could provide a

“planned permanent living arrangement.” However financial compensation could only be

provided if the kinship care provider met foster care licensing standards (Leos-Urbel et

al., 2002, p. 40). The implications of these policies discussed below, were signficant.

Spain adopted a formal kinship care system in 1987 under Law 21. As was the

case in other western child welfare systems, caseworkers in Spain were reluctant to place

children with grandparents due to attitudes and assumptions regarding intergenerational

transmittance of child maltreatment. A shortage of placements and increased research


12

into the positive outcomes and stability of kinship care contributed to a shift towards

increased acceptance of grandparents as alternative care givers (Fuentes-Pelaez, Amoros,

Pastor, Molina & Mateo, 2015). Kinship care rates in England have been increasing

since 1989 with the passing of the Children Act, which legislated the importance of

maintaining children with their family and social networks as much as possible (Farmer,

2009).

Kinship Care in Indigenous Communities

Kinship care is a significant issue for Indigenous populations in Canada.

Indigenous children in Canada were forcibly removed from their families and

communities in large numbers during the residential school era and again during the

sixties scoop (Blackstock, 2011; Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2012).

Furthermore, through colonization, punitive-based and rigid systems of child rearing

were forced on First Nation people (Bodor, Makokis & Friesen, 2014) that did not align

with their traditional beliefs.

First Nation people place great significance on children and familial

relationships. Loppie and Pauly indicate “family is a key feature of Indigenous wellness”

(2015, p. 218). A belief of particular significance within the Cree culture is the

“sacredness of children” (Hart, 2002, p. 48). Cree elders teach that understanding the

meaning of life comes from relationship with children. “Children help people to see their

purpose and then recognize their responsibilities to the many generations to come” (Hart,

2002, p. 48). Because of these traditional beliefs, it was common practice in First Nation

communities for kin to care for children when biological parents were unable to do so.


13

Yet most western child welfare systems, including Alberta, have only recently

recognized kinship care as a legitimate placement option (Government of Alberta, 2009).

In Australia, a similar tragic history of assimilationist policies and a “stolen

generation” has led to a community of Indigenous people who struggle with the loss of

their identity. They also experience the over-representation of Indigenous children in

government care and in the criminal justice systems, significant health issues and welfare

dependency (Ban, 2005). Australia commissioned the Bringing them Home Report in

1997 that suggested that, since extended family are often significantly involved in the

raising of children in Indigenous communities, the extended kinship network and

community as a whole should be considered as resources (Ban 2005). This highlighted

an Aboriginal child placement principle that had driven practice in Australia since the

1980’s. According to this principle, an Aboriginal child should be placed with: (i) with

the child’s extended family; (ii) with the child’s Aboriginal community; or (iii) with

other Aboriginal people (Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2002, p.

7).

Benefits of Placement in Kinship Care

Government systems have begun to implement enabling policies for kinship care

in recognition that these placements are beneficial for children. Alberta’s Enhancement

Policy of 2014 recognizes that placing a child with a caregiver with whom a connection

has already been established “reduces the trauma of coming into care, provides

familiarity during a difficult time, and helps reduce the need for multiple moves for the

child and the likelihood of the child coming back into care over time” (Ministry of

Human Services, 2014, 2.0).


14

While kinship placements may not be permanent, they can in fact be stable (Koh,

2010; Farmer, 2010). Messing differentiated these experiences (2006) and described

from the child’s perspective that stability did not need to be permanent because children

were confident that their families would always provide care in some way. Farmer found

that grandparents were least likely to experience placement disruption of any group of

kinship caregivers (2010). Even in cases of children with very troubled backgrounds or

behaviours, these kinship placements persevere. Placements for these children are more

likely to disrupt in non-kin foster care (Farmer, 2010). Denby suggests that placement

with a caregiver who has an existing, significant connection with the child represents a

protective factor (2011).

It is the quality of the relationship and the ongoing contact between children and

their biological family that contributes to kinship placements being more stable (Berrick,

1997; Koh, 2010; O’Brien, 2012). In kinship care separation of siblings is less likely and

contact with the biological parent is common (Terling-Watt, 2001). While there are

situations where contact with biological parent may present risk or concern, contact is

“desirable for most maltreated children” (Terling-Watt, 2001). Of further benefit, the

contact that occurs is more “natural” and without agency intervention or resource

intensive supported visits (O’ Brien, 2012). Even if a kinship placement breaks down at

some point, the time spent in kinship placement will have created opportunities for

extended family connection that continues on after the placement. This builds capacity

for that child to maintain a lifelong connection. A child who has spent time with an aunt

and uncle is more likely to stay connected with, or initiate contact with them when they

are independent adults (O’Brien, 2012).


15

Additionally, kinship care can contribute to healthy identity formation in children

since family and community membership helps answers questions of “who am I?” and

“where do I come from?” (O’Brien, 2012). This also has a significant impact on the

creation of one’s cultural identity (Ban, 2005). Shlonsky and Berrick highlight this as an

important issue. In considering the overrepresentation of certain minority groups and the

high number of non-minority foster parents within the child welfare system, many

minority children are being placed with non-minority foster parents. This then creates

many placements with “ethnic dissimilarities” (2001, p. 64) and complications in the

identity formation for the children placed there.

Messing suggested that much of the research regarding the reduced trauma and

stigma for children placed in kinship care did not represent children’s’ voices. However,

when she studied the issue while incorporating children’s voices, she found that the

children’s voices actually supported existing research that kinship placements resulted in

reduced trauma (Messing, 2006). Children described the transition to kinship care as

being natural and that their family relationships remained fluid. In a cohort studied by

Berrick it was found that kinship caregivers believed the children placed in their care

were less emotionally traumatized by past experiences than those children who were

placed in non-kin homes (Berrick, 1997).

Children placed in kinship care have been found to have fewer

emotional/behavioural problems than children placed in non-kin care (Keller et al.,

2001). Keller et al. (2001) found the clinical scores in emotional/behavioural domains for

children placed in kinship very closely match the general child population. While this

finding is interesting, a limitation to this study is differences in scores on


16

emotional/behavioural functioning for children placed in kinship care compared to those

placed with non-kin may occur because fewer services are offered to kinship families

(Keller et al., 2001). And with fewer services, the children placed in kinship care cannot

be tracked using similar indicators. It is also suggested that kinship caregivers may

inaccurately describe or minimize the emotional and behavioral issues of the children

placed in their care (Berrick, 1997).

Children placed in kinship care may be in care longer, but have lower rates of

recidivism. That is, once returned to parental care they are less likely to be removed

again from parental care (Berrick, 1997; Koh & Testa, 2011; Perry et al., 2012). While

this phenomenon could be impacted by different demographics of kinship versus non-

kinship type placements, there is evidence that these two groups of children are

becoming more and more demographically similar (Koh et al., 2011).

Farmer found that kinship homes that had gone through formal approval methods

and were receiving financial and practical support were more successful in providing

longer term, stable placements than those placements that had not (2010). Along with

this finding, Farmer’s UK study involving 270 file reviews found the practice and

attitudes of social workers involved in supporting kinship care work varied greatly in

different regions (2010) indicating a need for consistency in kinship care practice.

Challenges in Kinship Care Practice

A number of challenges exist within kinship care practice. Government and child

welfare authorities grapple with the notion of ensuring safety and managing risk for

children in care while also maintaining their connection to family. Authorities have a

duty to ensure that children, particularly those in their care, are not maltreated and


17

receive quality care. Shlonsky and Berrick (2001) describe a minimum standard for

parents providing care for their biological children. When these standards are not met,

the state intervenes and is expected to be responsible to provide care that is higher than

the usually accepted minimum. Furthermore, children who have been maltreated may

require a higher level of care. By definition (having required apprehension from original

families) these children present unique and challenging needs to their caregivers

(Shlonsky & Berrick, 2001). These considerations speak to the need for and importance

of robust systems of care.

A number of structural barriers exist for the general kinship caregiver population.

Poverty is a significant issue affecting kinship families. According to Falconnier,

Tomasello, Doueck, Wells, Luckey and Agathen (2010), the American Bar Association

reported that over half of the children in kinship care live in extreme poverty. Other

authors have described poverty as being a unique challenge faced and experienced by

kinship caregivers (Farmer, 2009). According to Shlonsky and Berrick (2001), “kinship

caregivers are more likely than nonrelated foster parents to be poor”.

In the United States, a number of jurisdictions require that licensing standards be

met before financial support can be provided to kinship caregivers. However, these

licensing standards, such as limited number of children per bedroom, window sizes, and

physical repair of the home, are often difficult for these caregivers to meet due to poverty

(Shlonsky & Berrick, 2001). The crisis nature of practice is such that a child may still be

placed with a kinship caregiver even if they do not meet licensing standards. In these

cases, they may be placed informally. If they are not licensed, they will not receive

supports. This further marginalizes poor families as they are forced to care for their kin


18

without financial compensation because they are too poor to qualify. The financial needs

of kinship caregivers are generally significant when considering their typical

demographics.

In addition to poverty, kinship caregivers are more likely than non-kin care

providers to be older women, less educated, ethnic minorities, live in “compromised

neighbourhoods” and experience health challenges (Berrick, 1997; Christenson &

McMurty, 2009; Keller, Wetherbee, LeProhn, Payne, Sim & Lamont, 2001). Yet even

with these disadvantages, kinship caregivers receive less services for the children placed

with them and have less regular contact with their caseworkers than non-kin foster

parents (Fuentes-Palaez, 2015; Keller et. al, 2001). It is unclear if this discrepancy is

because kinship parents prefer it this way or whether agency and professional variables

contribute to the lower services received by kinship caregivers (Falconnier et al., 2010).

Research also highlights that kinship caregivers are less prepared than non-kin

care providers, with little or no preparation before placement, limited formal training and

inadequate understanding of the child welfare system (Christenson & McMurty, 2009).

Kinship caregivers often receive little or no notice before a child is placed with them

and/or they begin fostering during a crisis. On the other hand, foster parents generally

become caregivers very intentionally and have made the decision to become caregivers

over a period of time (Coakley, et al., 2007). They also attend training, receive formal

supports from both they system and other formal caregiver colleagues.

There is a significant degree of strain on kinship caregivers. Compared to their

non-kin counterparts, kinship caregivers are 45% more likely to have trouble coping with

the children in their care. Because they are committed to the children in their care, they


19

often put the children’s needs ahead of their own (Farmer, 2010). However, the strain of

this kind of caregiving can eventually jeopardize the quality of the placement (Farmer,

2010), which highlights the needs for formal and informal support.

Kinship caregivers are more likely to care for children where there have been

concerns of parental substance abuse compared to other children in care (Coakley, et al.,

2007; Falconnier et al., 2010). Prenatal exposure to substances is often associated with

negative developmental consequences, which leaves children placed in kinship care more

likely to experience such challenges. Unfortunately, there is little research comparing

kinship versus non-kin placed children on developmental trajectories.

Some studies suggest that children placed in kinship care tend to stay longer in

placement than their peers placed in non-kin placements (Berrick, 1997; Leos-Urbel et.

al, 2002, O’Brien, 2012; Perry, Daly & Kotler, 2012), yet eventual reunification rates are

similar (Berrick, 1997, O’Brien, 2012). Furthermore, as indicated above, children placed

in kinship care have lower rates of recidivism (the likelihood a child returning to

government care after being returned to parental care) compared to children in non-kin

placements (Berrick, 1997; Koh & Testa, 2011; Perry et al., 2012). Overall though,

research into permanency outcomes that compare children in kinship and non-kin

placements is inconsistent and not generalizable (Koh, 2010). Blakey (2012) indicates

that mothers in her study identified feeling that having their children in kinship care

represented the “best of both worlds” where they could continue being a part of their

child’s lives without addressing lifestyle or addiction issues. Kinship placements in these

instances were viewed as enabling addictive and maladaptive behavior (2012). Blakey

speculates that higher levels of access in kinship care contributed to a reduced incentive


20

for birth parents to work towards the return of their children thereby delaying

reunification.

A significant challenge in kinship care practice may also derive from caseworkers

attitudes (Farmer, 2009). Caseworkers may hold beliefs that the relative of an abusive or

neglectful biological parent is more likely to be abusive or neglectful; such beliefs can

create a barrier to kinship placement and practice. Research has found that caseworkers

sampled felt that if grandparents, for example, were “responsible for creating or

participating in the problematic behavior by having raised adult children who abused or

neglected their children, why should they be supported in raising a new generation of

children?” (Lorkovich, Piccola, Groza, Brinda & Mark, 2004). Yet Lorkovich et al.’s

research actually found in most cases, the birth parent’s abusive or neglectful behavior

was the exception within their family of origin (2004). Furthermore, other research

suggests that some maternal grandmothers describe pride in being able to care for their

grandchildren even though they were unable to care adequately for their children. This

ability to “right a wrong” becomes a motivating factor for some kinship caregivers

(Blakey, 2012).

Caseworker’s attitudes toward kinship care in Ontario were explored by

Brisebois, Kernsmith and Carcone in 2013. Even though previous research found an

overall support of shifting practice towards family-based care, Brisebois et al. found

“moderate, generally negative attitudes about kinship foster care” (p. 412) among their

sample of caseworkers. They further found that this attitude and skepticism influenced

decisions to remove children from kinship care placements due to what was deemed to

be safety concerns by caseworkers. They also found that another compounding factor in


21

case decisions were worker’s attitudes regarding financial responsibility. Workers in this

study indicated kinship homes should not be financially supported by the agency were

more likely to have removed a child from the kinship home (Brisebois et al, 2013).

While this research is quite recent, provides Canadian context, and examines the role that

caseworker attitudes may play in the removal of a child placed in kinship care, it was

quantitative in nature and relied on self-reporting on survey instruments. A qualitative

approach would provide deeper insight into the rationale of case decisions and the

influence that experience and attitudes have had on these decisions.

Lorkovich, Piccola, Groza, Brindo and Marks also explored caseworker attitudes

towards kinship care as a potential barrier specifically to kinship adoption (2004).

Caseworkers who were identified as having rigid definitions of who could be included as

kin and also caseworkers or who believed a potential kinship caregiver should not have

close ties to the abusive or neglectful parent, were found to have allowed these attitudes

to negatively influence their placement decisions. The research noted “practitioners

often had difficulty separating some of their concerns and attitudes about the biological

family from kinship caregivers” (Lorkovitch et al, 2004). These attitudes have had an

impact on policies and practice in kinship care in general even though a growing body of

research results indicate that placement in kinship care is preferred (Lorkovitch et al,

2004; Christenson & McMurty, 2007; Scannapieco & Hegar, 1996; Falconnier et. Al,

2010).

While considerable knowledge has been gained regarding the experience of

kinship caregivers and the children placed in their care, understanding in the areas of

how best to support caregivers through training, formal supports, and information


22

sharing is lagging (Denby, 2011). Hong, Algood, Chiu and Lee suggest that because of

these complexities, an ecological approach is required in the development of these

kinship specific processes and policies (2011). These authors suggest there are multiple

layers of influence on the developmental outcomes for children in care. Further, the

interrelations of the child, and kinship caregivers’, environment must be understood

(Hong et al., 2011).

Furthermore, some authors have criticized the research done to date for its

reliance on Western approaches. For example, Love warned that the danger of applying

these western, dominant perspectives to Indigenous communities, for example, is the

“continuation of colonial processes, with the practice of oppression and cultural

dismemberment overlaid with the rhetoric of caring and altruism” (2000, p. 29).

Assessing Kinship Homes

One apparent detrimental impact of kinship policy on practice is in the area of

assessments and home studies. Alberta, like many other jurisdictions, requires a formal

kinship home study as part of the approval process. Prospective kinship caregivers

typically undergo a home assessment based on tools developed for middle class adoptive

families and based on modernist, empirical approaches (Calder& Talbot, 2006). These

structured tools do not consider cultural traditions or context, and only peripherally

consider the opinions of other family members. Modernist home study practices exclude

many potential kinship caregivers based on “class bias and are ignorant of the outcomes

for children who live in kinship placements” (Calder & Talbot, 2006, p. 31).

Furthermore, while family’s may appreciate the requirement for a formal evaluation of

their homes, an extended assessment process can be an “unwelcome, incomprehensible,


23

intrusive and worrying intervention” while they are adjusting to the unexpected provision

of child care (O’Brien, 2014, p. 356.)

The Structure Analysis Family Evaluation (SAFE) home study tool has been used

in Alberta and a number of home study practitioners have been trained in its use. SAFE

was developed in 1989 based on adoption home study practices and loosely based on the

Family Assessment Form (FAF) (Crea et al., 2007). Its intent was to create a uniform

home study methodology that would more thoroughly assess adoptive families through

uniformity, efficiency, and psychosocial evaluation (Crea, Barth, & Chintapalli, 2007;

Crea, Barth, Chintapalli, & Buchanan, 2009b). SAFE was a response to inconsistencies

in adoption practices and decision making, and an effort to meet the three purposes of an

adoption home study: i) to educate and prepare adoptive families for adoption, ii) to

gather information for the purpose of matching and, iii) to evaluate the fitness of the

family (Crea et al., 2007).

A differential use of home studies has developed throughout North America.

Over time, SAFE has not only been used for adoption but, but has been applied as an

assessment tool for different placement types such as foster care, and then kinship care

(Crea et al., 2007). This differential use of home studies has been based on the

assumption that “every person caring for a child with special needs should meet the same

standards” (Crea et al., 2007, p. 151). But, this differential use for foster care and

adoption does not recognize the difference in motivations or caregivers’ ability to make

short or long term commitments to children (Crea et al., 2007). Kinship care then adds

another level of complexity in the differential use of a home study. The motivation,

demographic, experience, challenges and outcomes are not necessarily the same for kin


24

and non-kin caregivers. Ironically, Crea et al. point out that state administrators

expressed the view that facilitating permanency and concurrent planning would be

facilitated with one single home study instrument methodology for all types of caregivers

(Crea et al, 2009b). This perspective is not supported in other research.

Research on the use of SAFE has focused on the perceptions by child welfare

professionals in its use and impact rather than on outcomes where it has been used (Crea

et al., 2007; Crea, Barth, Chintapalli & Buchanan, 2009a). An interesting finding has

been the differentiation between less experienced and more experienced staff in the use

of SAFE as a home study approach. Less experienced staff are more positive about the

use and impact of SAFE than more experienced staff (Crea et al., 2009a). This may

suggest that inexperienced workers require a structured decision making tool or

highlights an issue of change-management among senior staff. This underscores the

need for additional training in the home study process such as interviewing skills,

engaging with clients, and assessment (Crea et al., 2009a). SAFE is now identified as a

tool that is used for adoption, foster care and kinship. However research into its

differential effectiveness is extremely limited and the practice implications of differential

use have not been addressed.

Concerns have also been raised in the use of SAFE with Indigenous families and

caregivers. The Aboriginal Advisor’s report on the status of Aboriginal child welfare in

Ontario raised the issue that home study programs like SAFE should be removed until

they could be modified to reflect Indigenous values and cultures. The report further

suggested that home study programs and standards be developed that are specifics to

Indigenous communities (Beaucage, 2011).


25

Some jurisdictions have focused on group training programs as part of a home

assessment process (Crea et al., 2007). The Parents Resources for Information

Development and Education (PRIDE) is one such development program. The PRIDE

program, developed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, consists

of nine 3-hour training sessions delivered over a two-and-a-half months (Christenson &

McMurty, 2009). In addition to these training sessions families meet with a social

worker for assessment and information meetings in the family’s home (Christenson &

McMurty, 2009). PRIDE curriculum is based on five competencies: protecting and

nurturing children; meeting children’s developmental needs and addressing

developmental delays; supporting relationships between children and their families;

connecting children to safe, nurturing relationships intended to last a lifetime; and

working as members of a professional team (Christenson & McMurty, 2007). Research

showed participants of the PRIDE training program gained competencies in the area of

protection and nurturing of children, connecting children to safe, nurturing relationships

intended to last a lifetime, and working as a member of the professional child welfare

team (Christenson & McMurty, 2009). The rationale for the development of PRIDE is

embedded in the recognition that foster parent training is associated with outcomes such

as placement stability, parenting skills and parent satisfaction (Christenson & McMurty,

2007). Furthermore, social supports have been found to be crucial in the retention of

caregivers (Christenson & McMurty, 2007). However, as with other tools in the

assessment and initiation of caregivers, the effectiveness and impact of PRIDE with

kinship caregivers specifically is unknown and under researched.


26

Shlonsky and Berrick (2001) argue that a substitute caregiver’s home should

undergo the same scrutiny as does a biological family’s home in the course of an

“investigation” (p.61). This is often done through the licensing process. However this

process typically addresses safety and supervision only, and not other domains related to

child well-being (2001). Shlonsky and Berrick further suggest that placement in

unlicensed (unapproved) kinship care leaves these children are at risk of receiving

substandard care. Shlonsky and Berrick measured quality of care in terms of child safety

including maltreatment, physical safety of the home, physical environment,

neighbourhood, medical and dental care, educational support, mental health and

behavioural support, as well as developmental factors (2001). They did not consider

domains such as child attachment and connection, social supports, emotional supports,

community connection, cultural identity, stability, and ongoing connection to informal

and natural supports, all of which are areas in that children placed in kinship care

experience positive outcomes. Furthermore, licensing for kinship caregivers becomes

complex as requirements are typically based on middle class standards (number of

bedrooms, home insurance, fences) making it difficult for extended family who live in

poverty to qualify (Falconnier, Tomaselloa, Doueck, Wells, Luckey & Agathen, 2010).

Some research suggests leniency and flexibility with standards is acceptable in

kinship placements (O’Brien, 2012). The extent to which children are safe in a given

placement, factors into the consideration of leniency and flexibility of standards (Font,

2015). Research has suggested that kinship care may be safer when compared to

traditional foster care (Font, 2015; Winokur, Crawford, Longoardi & Valentine, 2008).

In a study that compared outcomes for children placed in kinship are to those placed in


27

foster care, Winokur et al. found that children in foster were 10.1 times more likely to

have an allegation of abuse or neglect while in care (2008). Font found allegations of

maltreatment to be higher for out of home placements within the first three months of

placement, suggesting the needs to support and screening to be imperative at initial

placement (2008). It should be noted, however, for this particular finding Font looked at

the allegations of maltreatment and not cases of substantiated maltreatment.

Lorkovitch et al. suggest home assessment processes for kinship families should

be comprehensive and examine not only the viability of the kinship caregivers as a

permanency option, but also the family’s needs in order to provide them with necessary

informational, financial, and social service supports (Lorkovitch et al, 2004). The focus

of this research was on the barriers to kinship adoption, and did not consider what

barriers families face when caring for kin temporarily.

Recently, a Spanish participatory action research project created an evaluation

instrument and questionnaire specific to kinship home assessment. Few researchers

identify and describe specific methodology to assessing kinship caregivers. This

particular project comprised of six open-ended questions to gather information on six

domains. These included: personal and social demographic data; coverage of basic

needs; collaboration with foster program professional teams, family structure and

dynamics; relationship between the foster family, the child and the biological family;

motivation and attitude toward fostering; and a final synthesis (Fuentes-Pelaez et al.,

2015). A number of limitations existed within this suggested framework including

methodology, a failure to recognize the clinical differences between kinship and foster

care, and a theoretical framework that failed to recognize marginalized populations and


28

instead furthered the dominant perspective. Furthermore, this participatory action

research included only child protection professionals and no kinship caregivers.

Until now, Spain has not had any home assessment process for kinship care. It is

interesting that Spain is applying foster care assessment strategies to kinship care in

Spain in a similar evolution with kinship care practice as North America. The Spanish

researchers make the connections that “reviewing the research helps us identify the

elements that are associated with disruptions in foster care and therefore could be

explored in an assessment of kinship foster caregivers” (Fuentes-Pelaez et al., 2015, p.

4). They further suggest that factors associated with a good foster care process for some

types of foster care appear to be the same for other foster care modalities. As an

example, issues and experiences for specialized foster care is similar in nature to general

foster care (Fuentes-Pelaez, 2015).

Alternatives in Kinship Care Home Assessment

Understanding the characteristics of successful kinship arrangements can help

inform appropriate assessment methodology. Coakley, Cuddeback, Buehler and Cox

identified characteristics of successful kinship arrangements through interviews with

kinship caregivers as “support of family, commitment of children, faith, good parenting

abilities, church involvement, flexibility and adequate resources” (2007, p. 92).

Characteristics that inhibited successful placements included “strained relationship with

the birth family, poor discipline strategies, inability to deal with the ‘system’, lack of

resources and inability to deal with children’s emotional, behavioural, physical problems

(Coakley et al., 2007, p. 93). This understanding can help guide the development of

assessment approaches in the context of the population identified by Coakley. However


29

this may not be representative of caregiving experiences for Indigenous populations or

other unique and diverse groups.

An important component of practice in kinship care and home assessment is

reflexivity (Mills & Usher, 1996; O’Brien, 2014; Fairbairn & Strega, 2015). A

practitioner’s reflection on their own particular set of values and their understanding of

the personal impact of their family history can provide insight into their attitudes about

kinship care. As discussed earlier, caseworker attitudes have a large bearing on this area

of practice and prevailing attitudes are not necessarily grounded in evidence. O’Brien

(2012) suggests practitioners in this area of practice must ask themselves a number of

questions regarding their own extended family networks, history, and experiences to

develop a reflexive position. This reflexive position ensures critical thinking applied to

this area of practice and the ability to apply principles of social justice.

Assessments may be considered as an ongoing process progressing through a

number of steps. Mills and Usher suggested a three-stage process that is family-centred

and strengths-based (1996). Because of the many cross-cultural situations and the

heterogeneity of kinship networks, Mills and Usher’s approach highlights a culturally

competent approach. This model suggests the assessment leads into case management

where a similar focus and principles are applied for “intensive wraparound service

delivery” (p. 602). The model also applied the following principles of attention to

cultural diversity; family participation and decision-making; systematic assessment; and

comprehensive services under a highly coordinated service delivery plan (Mills & Usher,

1996). Systemic assessment involves a three stage protocol using an ecological

theoretical approach to first encourage the families to self-identify their resources,


30

second to identify what supports would be required (including financial, child care,

stressors, and housing), and finally identify child-specific needs.

To self-identify resources, tools such as an ecomap and genogram are used to

further understand the resources, supports and relationships available within a family

system. A “pathways exercise” helps the case manager and family identify strengths

within the family and existing supports including a “family communicator” (Mills &

Usher, 1996, p. 606). The family communicator and case manager then organize the

FGC to explore further placement options and alternatives. Mills and Usher’s model uses

a Family Group Conference (FGC) to ensure family participation and empowerment.

Family decision-making is a key element of FGC (Mills & Usher, 1996) where family

members come together to make decisions about case planning and the use of family and

community resources.

The second step of the protocol is in understanding the formal services and

supports, which would be necessary to maintain the child in the kinship caregiver’s

home. The third step is focused on what the child’s needs would be. Both steps describe

the use self-assessment as foundational elements to the assessment. Children who are old

enough to describe their wishes are engaged in this self-assessment.

The family uses the information from the self-assessment, ecomap and genogram

to negotiate a service plan that incorporates attention to cultural diversity, family

participation, systemic assessment and comprehensive services.

Children placed in the demonstration project’s kinship homes, experienced

greater placement stability and caregivers reported a positive care experience and an

increased receipt of support services (Mills & Usher, 1996). This research dates back to


31

1996, and while ecological approaches to assessment and FGC are fully entrenched in

child welfare practice, the Mills and Usher model of kinship care case management has

not received widespread implementation. No updated research is available on this

framework.

O’Brien offers a conceptual model for kinship care assessment that addresses the

practice of assessing kinship homes, but also considers the political and legislative

impacts on kinship care assessment (2014). O’Brien identified the key parental capacities

required of kinship caregivers as: “insight into self; understanding the child’s needs and

be committed to meeting them; understanding and ability to deal with family dynamics,

especially one’s own position in it; and allowing the agency provide support to the child

and family” (O’Brien, 2014, p. 357). These parental capacities, however, must occur

within a context that is supported by the government or supporting agency. Enabling and

clear legislation and policy that recognize and encourage the preference for keeping

children within their family and community are required, but this model also recognizes

the role of the child’s family network and their participation as essential. Similar to

Mills and Usher, O’Brien suggests the use of family group decision making to mobilize

natural supports within the family or community (2014).

O’Brien’s work which is based in a social constructivist theoretical framework

ensures that context is recognized and ensures a critical stance towards practice and

theory. However, this work was completed in Ireland where the impacts of colonization

on Indigenous populations have not impacted the overrepresentation of Indigenous

populations the same way as it has in Alberta. This conceptual model suggested by


32

O’Brien omits the cultural factors, which may be more relevant in Indigenous

populations.

Conclusion

The literature indicates that to be successful, kinship home assessments should be

approached in a manner that is unique and different than traditional foster care (Hegar &

Scannapieco, 2014). Kinship families in many instances are the preferred option to care

for children, however they face unique challenges that differ from traditional foster care

(Hegar & Scannapieco, 2014). Terling-Watt indicates that a good kinship home

assessment addresses “an important distinction between what relatives plan to do and

what they are able to do in terms of providing permanent homes for these children”

(2001, p. 114). Kinship home assessments that are completed with kinship caregivers

should help identify this distinction. However a well-done assessment can also identify

where a child welfare agency can fill the gaps in terms of providing required support to

ensure success for children and their kinship caregivers.


33

Home Assessments Policy and Practice - Various Jurisdictions

To further understand current policy and its impact on practice, I sought to

understand policy and practice on kinship home assessment in various jurisdictions

throughout Canada and some international jurisdictions as well. This information was

compiled either by emailing specific contacts responsible for this area of policy and

practice in other provinces or by directly contacting them through phone or electronic

means such as Skype. Contacts were asked directly what the process was for kinship

home assessment; if there was a specific standardized tool or assessment form being used

for kinship assessment; and if any other practices, such as Family Group Conferencing,

were foundational to the assessment process. In the course of this sharing, contacts in

other jurisdictions were also made aware of Alberta processes for kinship care home

assessment. A summary of these findings are presented in detail in Appendix C.

Home Assessment in Alberta

Currently, kinship home assessments in Alberta are completed using either the

Structured Assessment Family Evaluation (SAFE) tool or completed using a regulated

form known as the Home Assessment Record (HAR). Attempts were made to

implement the SAFE tool provincially for all caregivers (adoption, foster care, and

kinship) by providing training and supports to this structured home assessment approach.

However, a significant barrier to this implementation was resistance amongst the

Delegated First Nation Agencies (DFNA’s) who saw the SAFE tool as not culturally

relevant and offensive to cultural practices of kinship. As a result, policy states that

home assessments can be made using either approach.


34

An unintended consequence to this flexibility in policy, has been that home

assessment training has been only offered to and accessed by those home assessment

practitioners who are using SAFE. While the SAFE training is specifically training in

the use of the structured tool, it does include elements of general home assessment

training. Those practitioners or agencies who have continued using the HAR have not

had opportunities to attend home assessment specific training outside of SAFE. It should

also be considered that aside from SAFE training no other home assessment specific

training is available for practitioners.

Child Intervention service delivery in Alberta is provided through eight Child and

Family Service regions and seventeen Delegated First Nation Agencies who are

responsible for delivering child intervention services in several First Nation

communities. Home assessment practice in each region and DFNA looks different. In

addition to the home assessment approach used, practitioners may be experienced staff

with experience in supporting caregivers. Or, in some areas, they maybe externally

contracted service providers with no child intervention experience. These service

providers, if practicing with the SAFE model, would have attended SAFE training.

However they would not have attended any other home assessment training and may or

may not have previous experience in child intervention. The majority of home

assessments in Alberta are completed with use of external service providers.

The external providers make recommendation for approval or non-approval based

on their assessment. However the authority to approve or not approve is delegated to the

child intervention supervisor. The information in the assessment report informs this

decision.


35

Some regions, primarily rural, complete home assessments internally. In these

situations, these internal staff completing the home assessments, are experienced

caseworkers or caregiver support workers with twenty or more years of experience. In

these sites, home assessment practice is recognizes as a highly specialized area of

practice requiring higher level of skill. Decision to approve or not approve homes

assessed in this manner sits with the supervisor who makes the decision in consultation

with the assessor.

Kinship Home Assessment in Other Jurisdictions

In preparation for this work, I completed an informal scan of home assessment

practice in other provinces. In April 2015, contacts from the provincial and territorial

placement services table were contacted via email and asked the following questions:

what, if any, home study tool is used? Who completes them? How are they trained or

supported in their role? And are there any other integral components to the kinship care

assessment process over and above the home study? The Provincial/Territorial

placement services table is comprised of government representatives from each province

and territory who have some responsibility for the creation and implementation of policy

and program development for child welfare placement resources.

Six of twelve jurisdictions replied to these questions and I charted their responses

of informal and comparative analysis. The chart of their responses was shared with the

jurisdictions for their own information and is attached as appendix C.

This scan showed the practice of contracting home assessments appears to be

unique to Alberta. All responses showed that internal staff complete the kinship care

home assessments. In some areas a placement specialists (ie: foster care social worker,


36

placement resources team, or residential services unit staff) complete the kinship home

assessment and while in others it may be the caseworker or social worker assigned to the

child’s file with decision making authority. It should be noted that in jurisdictions where

a placement specialist complete kinship home assessments, they are also completing

foster care and adoption home assessments. This is significant to note as previously

discussed in the literature review a differential approach to these different types of

assessment is required to meet the unique experience of kinship care.

Many of the jurisdictions identified using the SAFE structured assessment tool

and some other jurisdictions described developing their own tools for what they

described as the unique nature of kinship care as compared to adoption or foster care. It

is important to note that one of the jurisdictions that did develop developed a kinship

specific approach also developed additional assessment elements for kinship care to

augment the assessment used for other placement resources (adoption and foster care).

These additional elements include the ability to “maintain and manage healthy

boundaries with the birth family” and the family’s “ability to work with the Director in

an open and cooperative manner when the birth parents may not be in agreement with the

case plan.” The addition of these elements could suggest an attitude within the

jurisdiction that kinship caregivers may be problematic because of their alignment with

birth parents. A more in depth discourse analysis of jurisdictional policy would be

required to further understand underlying attitudes about kinship care in policy, practice

and program development in various jurisdictions.

Through this jurisdiction scan it was discovered that the requirements of kinship

care practice such as annual reviews, support plans or training greatly varied throughout


37

the Canadian jurisdictions. Only one jurisdiction identified the involvement of family in

all case and safety planning and the importance of family involvement in this work.

Because this scan approached particular individuals who are involved in

placement resources work, the information shared was their policy interpretation. Policy

interpretation and information shared could have been reflective of personal biases,

professional attitudes towards kinship care practice or perception. This review gives a

partial picture of kinship care practices throughout Canada.

Contact was also made with child intervention practitioners in Western Australia

and New Zealand. These jurisdictions are a significant source of comparison to

Alberta’s practice because of similar histories of colonization and resulting over-

representation of Indigenous children in care. These jurisdictions have adopted the Signs

of Safety approach to child intervention and Alberta is in the midst of implementing this

approach provincially (Alberta Human Services, 2014). This is a strengths-based,

solution-focused and safety-organized approach to child intervention work (Turnell,

2012) developed by child intervention practitioners, Andrew Turnell and Steve Edwards,

in the 1980’s. The approach serves as a model and a set of tools where professionals and

families engage together in partnership to address situations of child abuse and

maltreatment (Turnell, 2012). Family participation in case and safety planning and

decision-making is an outcome of this approach. In attempts to engage kin in case

planning and the placement provision, this approach has been used (Turnell & Essex,

2014).

Western Australia developed a new home assessment form that

incorporates elements of Signs of Safety practice in relative or significant other


38

assessment. Elements of Appreciative Inquiry for a strengths-based approach are

present in addressing questions on certain required elements in the form of “what is

working well.” The assessment is formatted to address five carer competencies that are

legislated and regulated in Western Australia. The competencies include: provides care

for a child in a way that promotes the wellbeing of the child, promotes the child’s family

and interpersonal relationships, and protects the child from harm; is able to provide a

safe living environment for the child; is able to work co-operatively with officers, a

child’s family and other people when providing care for a child; is able to take

responsibility for the development of his or her competency and skills as a carer; and is a

person of good character and repute. Inherent in these legislated competencies are value

laden statements which complicate professional assessment. However the application of

Signs of Safety model and focus on solution-focused approaches is embedded in the

assessment. Following completion of the assessment, the report and recommendations go

through a series of panels for final approval, which further removes the family from final

decision-making.

Similar to Western Australia, New Zealand has embedded Signs of Safety

strengths-based and solution focused approaches into their caregiver assessment. In a

New Zealand home assessment, a number of identified domains of assessment are

described in the language and context of the Indigenous Maori people. This inclusive

approach to language, together with solution-focused and strengths-based approaches

ensures family engagement in the home assessment process. Furthermore, typically a

kinship care home assessment begins following a Family Group Conference, which have

been mandatory in New Zealand since 1989 (Connolly, 2006).


39

Methodology Theoretical Framework

Because of the history of structural colonialism in the child welfare system, this

research is grounded in an anti-colonialist perspective. This perspective is the most

appropriate approach in addressing the over-representation of Indigenous children in care

(Pon, Gosine, & Phillips, 2011; Hart, 2009). Many authors have pointed out that child

welfare systems have “become the contemporary manifestation of colonization” (Strega

& Carriere, 2015, p. 2, TRC, 2012). Colonization occurs when hierarchical and dominant

discourses are adopted and clients who are typically marginalized are seen as the ‘other’

or less than (Strega & Carriere, 2015). Colonization is driven by a worldview that

embraces “dominion, self-righteousness and greed” and can impact both the colonized

and colonizer at many levels – nation, community, family and individual (Hart, 2002, p.

24). When societal and institutional structures produce and reproduce inequalities based

on race, class, sexual and gender location, colonization is deemed to be structural (Sefa

Dei, 2000).

This perspective differs from anti-oppressive approaches, which have failed to

address over-representation because they have failed to recognize the continuing issue of

white supremacy in the dominant culture (Pon et al, 2011). An anti-colonialist approach

considers colonialism to be persistent. Hart (2009) argues that, while relationships

between the state and Indigenous people have been redefined and re-negotiated,

dominant structures and marginalization continue through these re-negotiated structures

(p. 28). Since colonialism continues, anti-colonialism should not be confused with post-

colonialism, which considers colonization as an event in the past (Hart, 2009). Rather


40

anti-colonialism is the embracing of an alternative or oppositional paradigm as well as

“cultural revitalization” (Hart, 2009, p. 32). In practice, anti-colonialism focuses on the

recovery of traditional Indigenous knowledge (Hart, 2009, p. 32). An anti-colonialist

would suggest a reorganization that embraces the Indigenous traditional ways of

knowing, helping, doing and being, which suggests an anti-colonialist perspective by

recognizing traditional Indigenous knowledge and proficiency. The community

conversations hosted by the Government of Alberta heard a number of comments

suggesting traditional Indigenous knowledge should inform the child welfare system

(Alberta Government, 2014).

Alberta has recently adopted an Aboriginal Experience principle as part of the

Child Intervention Practice Framework that describes an anti-colonialist approach. The

principle states:

Aboriginal people have always had their own ways of ensuring that vulnerable members, including children, are safe, protected and nurtured. We honour this by recognizing their expertise in matters concerning their children, youth and families. (Alberta Human Services, 2014)

This principle suggests that an exploration of how traditional kin networks are

approached and understood by the child welfare system is vital. Processes and policy

must start supporting the perspective represented in the principles. Intrusive home

assessment practices have been criticized for failing to honour the expertise of

community or family.

This investigation is also grounded in critical ecological systems theory. This

theoretical approach integrates principles of social justice through questioning and self-

reflective application of theory (Rothery, 2008). Ecological theory gives “equal weight


41

to the individuality of our clients as people and to the social environments that determine

their well-being” (Rothery, 2008, p. 90). By taking a relational perspective, this theory

recognizes that the person and environment are intricately connected and “reciprocally

sustaining and shaping one another” (Rothery, 2008, p. 91). Integrating concepts of

social justice into ecological theory has evolved this theoretical perspective into critical

ecological theory. This theoretical approach has significant influence, not only on child

intervention practice, but also on the practice of approving caregivers for children in

care. Assessment practices for caregivers often use an ecological framework

(Scannapieceo & Hegar, 1996). However, adding a critical lens to the consideration of

kinship caregivers is of significant importance to ensure a socially just approach to this

typically marginalized population.

The recognition of people’s social context and the influence of societal constructs

suggest that postmodernist philosophy influences critical ecological systems theory. As a

result, approaches to research influenced by this theory lend themselves to being

investigated through qualitative means. Qualitative research aims to explore a

phenomenon by understanding the meaning individuals attribute to the social problem

(Creswell, 2014). Qualitative research is suited to studies that incorporate transformative

worldviews, seek to examine the oppression of individuals or to examine the impacts of

social constructs on marginalized populations (Creswell, 2014).

Secondary Data Analysis

This study identified existing qualitative data from previous government

consultations and conducted a secondary analysis on this data to isolate the crucial

elements of kinship home assessment. Using existing data to inform and reform child


42

intervention practices honours the voices and expertise of community members who

have previously shared this information for the purposes of making changes to child

intervention practice.

Secondary data analysis is “the use of an existing data set to find answers to a

research question that differs from the question asked in the original or primary study”

(Hinds, Vogel, Clarke-Steffen, 1997, P. 408). The secondary use of data in quantitative

studies has been common (Gillies et al., 2005; Irwin et al., 2011). However the

secondary analysis of qualitative studies is far less common and has only begun to be

discussed in the literature (Gillies et al., 2005). Analyzing secondary data sets is a

complex approach, yet archived sources of qualitative data have been described as a

potential repository of valuable knowledge. They are “a rich and unique yet often

unexploited source of research material that can be reanalyzed, reworked, and compared

with contemporary data” (Corti, et al., 2005, p. 1).

Irwin and Winterton (2011) identify areas of investigation that can benefit from a

secondary analysis of qualitative data. Examples include assessing the credibility of new

research, supplementing one’s own data, providing rich descriptive information,

revealing new methodological insights by reflecting on previously conducted research,

generating new findings by analyzing old data from a new lens, or gaining further insight

on hard to reach populations or sensitive topics without further intrusion into vulnerable

populations. Justification for this thesis research focuses on the latter area. It is well

documented that Indigenous communities have been victimized and oppressed in the

name of science (Smith, 1999; Hart, 2002). De-colonizing and anti-oppressive

approaches that acknowledge power differences within the history of research with


43

Indigenous populations, seek to understand the ‘truth’ for Indigenous populations rather

then the ‘fact’ identified by Western knowledge (Smith, 1999).

Some members of the Indigenous community in Alberta have identified that

further consultations could be viewed as intrusive. Using secondary data analysis will

honour the information they have already shared with government agencies. The

government of Alberta hosted a number of Community Conversations from 2011 to

2013. At these conversations, participants expressed frustration and exploitation from

constant consultation. The following comment from the community conversation echoes

this frustration:

Been to SO MANY of these – this is ANOTHER conversation – where are all the other volumes of reports, all the ideas, all the good things – so frustrating – it’s just talk, it’s always just talk – nothing has changed.

Many benefits exist for the increased use of qualitative secondary data analysis in

general. Bishop (2009) highlights some of these as, “making ‘unmined data’ available,

avoiding duplication, reduced burden on research participants, greater transparency of

research procedures, alignment with open access principles, recognizing that publicly

funded research is a public asset” (p. 256). The practice of secondary data analysis

aligns with those governmental organizations’ that are moving towards open data sharing

policies (Bishop, 2009). This data sharing movement comes from recognition that

transparency and openness makes the fullest use of publicly funded research (Bishop,

2009). Whiteside et al (2012) identifies the benefits as “efficiencies in time, money, and

other resources and the maximization of the use of potentially important data that might

otherwise lie dormant” (p. 504). Secondary data analysis research can prevent existing


44

data sets from being underused and can generate new knowledge and hypotheses or

support for existing theories (Hinds et al., 1997).

However, challenges exist in secondary data analysis. While the description of

these challenges differ amongst authors, they generally align with Whiteside et al.’s three

categories of methodological challenges: quality of data, data “fit” and the nature of the

relationship between the research and the data (2012).

In a secondary analysis of primary data, there must be consideration paid to the

quality of the primary data. The quality of secondary data may be problematic if the

data is outdated, if some data or information is missing, if there were weaknesses in the

original research design, or there was a poorly documented methodology (Whiteside et

al, 2012). Assessing the quality of the primary research design can be challenging,

unless the researcher has access to or was involved in the primary research. One must

have access to the principal investigator and the study team in order to assess quality

(Hinds et al, 1997). With access one can measure the completeness including a measure

of the condition of the data set, accuracy of transcription, comprehensibility of the data,

and how interpretable the data set is (Hinds et al., 1997). This closeness can help the

research, however too much closeness can skew the secondary data investigator to

existing knowledge of the phenomena (Hinds et al., 1997).

The research question within the secondary data analysis must “fit” with the

purpose, context and time period of the primary research. Furthermore it’s important

that secondary study has a similar theoretical framework to the primary study (Van den

Berg cited in Corti, 2005) and a similar time frame (Vall Gillies and Edwards cited in

Corti, 2005). This idea of currency of the data set is important as qualitative research


45

may study a phenomena’s change over time. Therefore, the timing of a secondary

analysis should be carefully considered (Hinds et al., 1997).

Hammersley (2010) points out the weaknesses attributed to secondary data

analysis are the same as the weaknesses identified for qualitative research in general.

For example, consider the critique that secondary data analysis uses data received in

response to the primary research question to answer a different secondary research

question. This can also be the case in qualitative, primary research. Often this type of

investigation will start off looking at one phenomenon but the iterative nature of

qualitative research, brings it into another direction. In addition the context of a

phenomenon is more fully revealed during the course of research, therefore the context

understood at the beginning of an investigation is different than it is at the end (Irwin &

Winterton, 2011).

Finally, the nature of the relationship between the research and data must be

considered. Qualitative research is strongly connected to the interaction between

participant and researcher (Gillies et al, 2005). Secondary data analysts need to be

sensitive to the emotions and cognitions experienced by the participants in the primary

study. Primary study investigators can help sensitize the secondary analysts into a sense

of “having been there” (Hinds et al., 1997). It’s a challenge to secondary analysts who

do not experience facial expressions, gestures or comments made that were not recorded.

These help set the context of the original data (Hinds et al, 1997). However, research

assistants or research teams themselves are often removed from qualitative data and the

interviews themselves as they review transcripts or recording carried out by others


46

similar to a secondary analysis (Hammersley, 2010). Generally speaking we know more

about the research process and flaws in that methodology when we create the data.

Ethics are a significant issue in the use of secondary data analysis as well, and

issues regarding consent are particularly important. Ideally consent would have been

received in the primary study to use data in secondary analysis. (Hinds et al, 1997) and it

is suggested that contemporary primary researchers should consider incorporating this

into their consent forms. When historical data is used, going back to get consent is time-

consuming and can be impossible (Gillies et al., 2005). Researchers completing

secondary analysis must consider if reusing the data breaches the contract between the

primary researchers and the participants (Whiteside et al., 2012). Bishop (2009)

proposes that full consent is non-existent anyway. We cannot ever inform participants of

all consequences, as they may not be known. If they were well known there would be no

reason to research. Ethical codes also highlight a duty to benefit society by increasing

knowledge and understanding. This duty must be weighed against harm towards

participants (Bishop, 2009). Prior to undertaking secondary analysis researchers must

consider if harm will come to the participants.

Ethics can also support the use of secondary data analysis. Internationally, most

ethical codes for research prescribe that participants should be exempt from unnecessary

intrusion (Bishop, 2009). Suggesting secondary data analysis is one way to minimize

this unnecessary intrusion. There is also a duty for openness and transparency within the

research community.

Irwin and Winterton (2011) advise, “the difficulties for secondary analysis will

be more or less severe depending on whether there is a risk of systematic interpretation


47

of data and whether there are checks that can be made on our interpretations with

reference to other forms of data” (p. 10). Similarly Whiteside et al suggests the use of

literature can strengthen the secondary analysis as an additional source of comparative

data (2012). My approach to secondary data analysis included comparison to the

literature. In addition, this study ensured rigour by presenting key themes from the

secondary analysis to a group of practitioners.

I have confidence that secondary data analysis was an appropriate approach in my

thesis investigation. I was confident because I had access to the data and the

methodology in which the data was collected, the data “fits” this research endeavour and

furthermore, it honours the voices that were shared in past data collection. The primary

data collection was grounded in a similar anti-colonialist theoretical framework which

matches this investigation.

Thematic Analysis

Thematic analysis is a common approach to data analysis within the qualitative

research. Simply, it focuses on “identifiable themes and patterns of living and/or

behaviour” (Aronson, 1994). It is a “method for identifying, analyzing and reporting

patterns (themes) within data. It minimally organizes and describes your data set in

(rich) detail. However, frequently it goes further than this, and interprets various aspects

of the research topic” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). Furthermore they describe

thematic analysis as the search across a data set to find repeated patterns of meaning

(2006).

Thematic analysis has been described as foundational to qualitative research

(Braun & Clark, 2006). They further identify the benefits of thematic analysis as


48

flexibility and theoretical freedom. However, critics argue that thematic analysis has

historically struggled in ensuring rigour due to an absence of guidelines, tools, and

techniques (Attride-Stirling, 2001; Braun & Clarke, 2006). While the field of qualitative

research has gained popularity (Attride-Stirling, 2001) and developed strategies for

ensuring rigour in data collection and analysis, thematic analysis as an approach within

the qualitative approach has been poorly described and acknowledged (Braun & Clarke,

2006).

However, there are several authors who have suggested guidelines and applied

strict methodology to thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Aronson, 1995; Tuckett,

2005; Attride-Stirling, 2001). Braun and Clarke (2006) describe the process that begins

with the collection of data and familiarizing oneself with the data. This may be through

transcribing recordings or repeated readings of the entire data set. The second step is to

generate initial codes based on your familiarity with the entire data set. Codes identify a

feature of the data. These codes are then organized into meaningful groups or categories

of codes. Themes then start to develop from the analysis of these categories or groups.

Analysis includes thinking about the relationship between categories and potential

themes and main themes or sub-themes may emerge.

Significant effort must be put into reviewing and refining codes and possible

themes and ensuring there are clear and identifiable distinctions between themes (Braun

& Clarke, 2006). As themes are refined and defined, they require a detailed analysis and

what Braun and Clarke refer to as a story that connects to the broader “story” (2006).

Attride-Stirling (2001) describes the use of thematic networks as an

organizational aide to thematic analysis by facilitating the depiction of themes and their


49

interrelationship. Themes are mapped out in a web-like manner based on groupings of

various similarity and filter down in increasing specificity. Similar to the constructs and

processes of grounded theory, (Corbin and Strauss, 1990; Attride-Stirling, 2001), basic,

organizing and global themes are identified through the thematic network. Basic themes

are the simplest representation of the data and are grouped together to form an organizing

theme. Organizing themes bring basic themes into clusters of similar issues and become

more abstract ideas of what is represented in the textual data. These organizing themes

come together to form global themes which can present an assertion about a given issue

or reality (Attride-Stirling, 2001). These networks can be visually represented and create

a descriptive aid in documented research.

Although the literature review is a critical piece of thematic anlalysis, there is

some disagreement with when to engage in a literature review relative to data analysis.

An early literature review may narrow the analytic field of vision and create focus

(Braun & Clarke, 2006). On the other hand, a literature review may interfere with an

inductive approach to data analysis. These critics argue the data should be informing the

identification of themes and not the current body of research (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

In reviewing thematic analysis for quality, it is important to ensure that an

analysis of the data has occurred and not just a collection of data. Other potential

weaknesses include the use of data collection questions as an overall theme, and themes

that overlap and fail to be differentiated, or where there is inconsistency. Other potential

weaknesses to watch for, similar to other qualitative research data pitfalls, include when

there is no support for analytic claims and a mismatch between analysis and theoretical


50

framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In this project, an anti colonizing framework aligns

with the framework of the community conversations for example.

Thematic analysis, when done carefully and correctly, provides a robust

methodology for data analysis. Its flexibility brings benefit to research endeavours

through various theoretical frameworks. The flexibility inherent in thematic analysis

makes it appropriate for use in secondary qualitative data analysis. As an example,

grounded theory would not be an appropriate approach in secondary qualitative data

analysis because I do not have access to the sample to go back an ensure saturation in

each theme or category, nor can I use theoretical sampling. Approaches that require

direct observation or interaction such as ethnography are also not possible in secondary

qualitative data analysis.

For this project, the use of thematic analysis through thematic network mapping

(Attride-Stirling, 2001)was used to identify the crucial elements of kinship care as

identified through the existing data sets.

Rigour

This project design used rigor criteria as described by Lincoln (1995) for

qualitative research. I chose Lincoln’s framework specifically because it promotes

qualitative inquiry that displays commitments to its participants; an ability to foster

professional, personal and political action; and research that promotes social justice and

diversity (Lincoln, 1995). Elements described by Lincoln of positionality, voice, critical

subjectivity, and sacredness are embedded throughout this project.


51

Identifying and articulating my positionality early on ensured ongoing reflection

on my position and biases. Lincoln (1995) describes the criteria of voice as ensuring

someone is speaking for the silenced, the disengaged, or the marginalized.

This project was designed to ensure the voices shared in previous inquiry were

not silenced and were further honoured and validated by exploring answers to this

particular research question. I employed journaling while designing the project,

identifying the methodology and during data analysis which generated opportunities to

support critical subjectivity and reflexivity.

The aim of this project is to more deeply understand the experience of assessment

for kinship caregivers in order to gain a more fulsome approach to this area of practice. It

is intended that this deeper understanding in turn, will support the caregivers. Sacredness

is gained in research that is based on the “granting of dignity, and deep appreciation of

the human condition” (Lincoln, 1995, p. 284). This is relevant as the construct of

kinship care aligns with Indigenous world views.

As described earlier, Irwin and Winterton (2011) suggest specific checks be used

to check on interpretations of data in secondary qualitative data analysis. In the case of

this project, a comparison to the body of literature on kinship care and home assessment,

and the use of a focus group to discuss findings is used to check on interpretations made

in the data analysis.


52

Data Analysis

My process for data analysis comprised of two elements. First, the secondary

data sets were themed using thematic analysis. Then, preliminary themes were presented

to a focus group for discussion. Themes were then further developed with feedback from

the focus group. Within this secondary data analysis, data from two sources were used:

the DM Summit Meetings and Community Conversations.

Data set 1: DM Summit Meeting. On October 27 and 28, 2011 and on February

22, 2012, the Government of Alberta held Deputy Minister’s summit meetings with

directors of Delegated First Nation Agencies (DFNAs), Chief Executive Officers (CEOs)

of Child and Family Services Authorities (CFSAs) and representatives from First

Nations receiving services from CFSA. Forty to fifty participants attended these

meetings to discuss home study practice and policy, guiding principles, and outcomes.

The goal was to develop a shared understanding and a province-wide approach to

completing a home study that was culturally appropriate, based on good outcomes and

solid foundational principles. All participants held leadership positions such as Director

or Senior Manager.

Participants were divided into three groups according to Treaty Area. DFNA

Directors and representatives from First Nations met and CEO’s from the regions

corresponding with that particular Treaty Area met together. As a result, Treaty Areas 6,

7 and 8 met as separate groups and each had unique conversations. Each group was

asked to carefully draft and identify the principles and outcomes and to also fine tune

their responses after some reflection at the second meeting. The groups were further

asked to identify specific qualifications and training needed by people doing the home


53

study, and essential specifications of an instrument that could be used by the person

doing the home study.

Each group included a facilitator who was employed within the Ministry of

Human Services and a note taker. Facilitator guides and an orientation were provided to

both facilitators and note takers to ensure a consistent approach within all three separate

groups. Notes were made onto large flipchart paper whereby participants could, and did,

provided clarification or correction as needed while notes were being taken. The notes

from all three conversations were amalgamated together and shared with all participants.

Data Set 2: Community Conversations. From December 2011 to May 2013, the

Aboriginal Engagement and Strategy Division conducted 16 Community Conversations

as a means to understand the complexity of the issue of the overrepresentation of

Indigenous children and youth in government care. The Community Conversation

model was adopted from the Tamarack Institute processes (Tamarack Institute, 2016).

The intent of a community conversation is to “bring together people with diverse

perspectives to share their insights on a topic of common importance” (Alberta

Government, 2014). Community conversations are open ended and are based on the

premise that solutions to complex problems lie within the diversity of skills, perspectives

and strengths that exist within the community; incorporate the views of people who play

a variety of roles within the community; do not start out with a solution in mind; start

with a sense of curiosity about the variety of perspectives on the topic; and are structured

to build a common understanding of the issue and the roles of people connected to the

issue (Alberta Government, 2014).


54

This community conversation approach aligns with an anti-colonialist perspective

where the community is seen to be an expert on themselves, and that expertise is

embraced. For this reason, it was important to include data gained through this process

within my study. Furthermore a very large amount of data was collected through this

process and it is important to honour those who in good faith provided this information.

In fact comments were recorded from participants at the community conversations that

spoke to the need to honour the information. Participants stated:

How many more stories do our people need to tell? We need to leave today with action.

It is disrespectful to ask people to share their stories and not make change happen.

Been to SO MANY of these – this is ANOTHER conversation – where are all the other volumes of reports, all the ideas, all the good things – so frustrating – it’s just talk, it’s always just talk – nothing has changed. same things over and over and over.

We meet and we meet… we need to be heard this time and the change has to happen!

There were 1628 individuals from 126 communities were invited to attend the

conversations and 782 participated. These included youth, elders, First Nation and Metis

community members, individuals with lived experience, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal

service providers (ie: health, education, law enforcement), and staff from Delegated First

nation Agencies (DFNAs) and Child and Family Services Authorities (CFSAs).

Participants were from both government and non-government agencies and represented

rural and urban populations. Each event was planned by a steering committee that

identified local invitees and the logistics of the day. Local Indigenous elders played a

crucial role at each community conversation. Participants were advised the information


55

would be used in the future to inform practices and policies within the child welfare

system, thus setting the stage for using this data in the current project.

The conversations started with open-ended questions about what was happening

in the field of child intervention for Indigenous children, youth, families and

communities. Following this, participants were asked about what changes they would

like to see and what steps could be taken to make these happen. The discussion at each

conversation was captured by note takers who sat at each table and wrote down the

comments made by participants. Each of the 13,000 comments was then entered into an

excel database and sorted into primary and secondary themes. However, the un-themed

comments were still accessible allowing for secondary analysis of the pure comments.

In the fall of 2013, each community where a community conversation was held

was visited by the Aboriginal Engagement and Strategy Division of the Alberta

Government and presented with the information as it was heard.

Analysis of Secondary Data. The raw data for each of the two data sets was

obtained through formal channels and permission for the Ministry of Human Services.

Then, in the case of the Community Conversations, this data was stored in a large excel

database of 13,000 comments. These comments were from table conversations that had

been transcribed by facilitators at the Community Conversations. They were then

entered into large database for later analysis. The comments themselves were used for

the secondary data analysis.

Data from the DM Summit Meetings were in the form of flip chart notes from the

2 events which were then transcribed to Word documents. These meetings each had

facilitators and note takers taking notes on large flip charts during the conversation.


56

While there were no audio recordings from these meetings, it can be assumed that note

taking through flip charts ensures accuracy in the note taking. Because the participants

are able to correct the note taker on the accuracy of the notes being taken, we can be

assured that any misinterpretation is caught by the participants themselves at the time of

the note taking.

After I read all of the comments from both data sets in their entirety, I returned

and started to code comments line by line. A list of these codes is presented in Appendix

D. I used NVivo 10 as a qualitative software analysis tool to code and organize my

research. During the coding, various memos and journals were made to ensure

appropriate reflection and consistency in the theming process. For example, while all

13,000 comments from the Community Conversations were analyzed. Several of those

comments were not relevant to this particular research question on kinship care. As a

result I generated a memo describing that comments were being included that related to

kinship, extended family, caregivers, recruitment of caregivers or caregiving. Data that

did not include these constructs were excluded.

Starting with a process of open coding, comments from both data sets were

individually coded to describe the topic or issue being described in the comment. Over

time, these comments were then grouped and categorized using NVivo 10, and organized

into global themes. The coding from NVivo 10 then pictorially became a thematic

network map to be described in the findings. I returned to the themes and codes a

number of times and continued refining the themes.

Focus Group. After an initial thematic network map was developed, early

findings were presented to a group of practitioners involved in kinship care home


57

assessment in Alberta for feedback and discussion. The feedback from this group of

practitioners augmented the data from the secondary data analysis and together with the

secondary data analysis informed the findings. The focus group provided rigour and a

check on the quality of the secondary data analysis.

A purposive sampling approach was used for the focus group. This group of

practitioners were recruited from an existing working group of the Child and Family

Services Division of the Ministry of Human Services. I presented information on the

research question, methodology and consent process at one of this group’s regular

meetings. This was followed up with an email invitation to the group for participation in

a two-hour focus group and included the same information on the purpose of the focus

group. Informed consents were attached to the email invitation that included contact

information in the event there were any questions. This consent form is included as

Appendix A.

Of the fourteen practitioners invited to participate, there were nine who

participated and one who was sent as a proxy. It should be noted that the proxy was also

a practitioner with significant experience in the area of kinship care. One participant was

represented an agency providing services exclusively to an Indigenous community.

Three of the participants connected to the focus group through video conferencing. All

participants signed consent forms.

A focus group protocol was developed and is attached here as Appendix B. The

focus group was audio recorded and then later transcribed. The focus group was advised

of this at the outset of the meeting. As per the focus group protocol, they were also

advised that the information shared within the focus group was confidential and


58

participants were asked to also respect the confidentiality of fellow participants. They

were further advised they were free to withdraw their consent at any time and leave the

group, however because of the format of the group the information they had shared until

the point of leaving would be included in the findings. After the explanation, all

participants confirmed they were prepared to continue with their participation and the

audio recording began.

A power point presentation was presented to the group, as per the focus group

protocol, and included a brief overview of the project, research question, and

methodology. This included a brief overview of secondary data analysis, an overview of

the secondary data sources, and an overview of thematic analysis and thematic network

mapping.

Feedback and discussion emerged after the presentation of some themes. This

discussion helped refine and reinforced or confirmed certain key areas that had arisen

from the secondary data analysis or the participants presented elements that they

identified as crucial or requiring further consideration. The discussion also focused on

elements of disagreement or areas they felt the secondary data sources had not

considered, but in the perspective of the practitioners was worth consideration.


59

Findings

The research set out to discover the perceived crucial elements of kinship care

home assessment. A descriptive approach to analysis was chosen rather than interpretive

due to the secondary analysis nature. An interpretive approach to data analysis would

risk erroneous assumptions there was no relationship to the participants or the data itself.

A descriptive approach maintains a closer portrayal of the data (Irwin & Winterton,

2011). Analysis of the data revealed seven global themes or crucial elements as

identified by the secondary data and focus group. The final global themes were:

Assessor Characteristics; Important Areas to Address; Home Assessment Process;

Safety; Policy and Legislated Requirements; and Systemic Issues.

Notably these global themes identify issues from the micro to the macro systems

level. There is value in considering the crucial elements from this ecological systems

approach to firmly understand from a critical perspective the experience between the

practitioner and the family or caregivers at the micro level of practice. But, this

approach also considers the macro influences that occur at a larger systemic or societal

level that potentially impact the experience of families within child welfare and

specifically those pursuing kinship care. This considers “all people or groups of people

in a system share a reciprocal influence on each other” (Rothery, 2008, p. 96). These

systems at the micro and macro level mutually impact each other in a circular rather than

linear manner (Rothery, 2008). Diagramming becomes a useful approach to

conceptualize the person within the larger environment or ecology (Rothery, 2008). The

crucial elements of kinship care home assessment can be visually represented in the

following figure.


60

Conceptual Model of the Crucial Elements of Kinship Care

Conceptually, the smaller, inner circles represent what an assessor brings with

them as they meet with a potential caregiver or family in their home. These are the

influences at the micro level. As we work our way out, we recognize that macro

elements also influence the home asessment and impact the conversations and

interactions that unfold at the ‘kitchen table’. Systemic issues, and policy and legislative

requirements influence what the practitioner is obligated to do or is unable to do at the

‘kitchen table’.

The crucial elements of kinship care home assessment can be described visually

using the thematic network map of global and organizing themes as in the following

thematic network map of the crucial elements.


61

Thematic Network Map – Global and Organizing Themes of the Crucial Elements of Kinship Care Home Assessment

Throughout this section, basic and organizing themes will be broken down

further in thematic network maps for for each global theme followed by further

description and discussion. Detailed examples of comments demonstrating each theme

are represented in tables in Appendix E. Sections on these tables left blank, represent


62

areas in which there were no comments provided. Findings from the focus group will be

integrated throughout the discussion of the themes.

Assessor Characteristics

Those elements that are in the centre of the visual model represent the Assessor

Characteristics. Assessors are the social workers, typically, who completed the home

assessment by meeting with the family members individually, and with the whole family

and assess the ability of potential caregivers to care for the identified children. The

themes presented here are the elements and competencies that an assessor1 brings with

them to the home they are assessing. Within this global theme, comments were further

analyzed into organizing and basic themes and visually portrayed in the following figure.

Three organizing themes included Assessor Skill, Assessor Perspective and Professional

Supports highlighted comments pertaining to those topics.

1 The terms assessor, home assessor or practitioner are used interchangeably throughout this section and all describe the social worker who completes the home assessment.


63

Thematic Network Map – Assessor Characteristics

Assessor Skill. Within the Assessor Skill organizing theme was the recognition

of the importance of the level experience for a practitioner, interview skills, relationship

building and training. Experience referred to the level of experience the assessor has in

completing home assessments or social work practice in general. Communication skills

incorporated skills in interviewing families and caregivers, and also written

communication skills. Relationship building was identified as a crucial element and is

also identified by Fairbairn and Strega (2015) as a core element of any anti-oppressive


64

child welfare assessment. Training refers to the formal training that an assessor has in

completing home assessments. It also can refer to training in other crucial elements

outlined within the findings.

Assessor Perspective. Also under Assessor Characteristics was the organizing

theme of Assessor Perspective. This includes elements that form an assessor’s

perspective or innate qualities that were identified as being important for a home assessor

to possess. These qualities included being collaborative, possessing critical thinking,

cultural competency, reflexivity, respect, strengths-based, and practitioner proximity.

An assessor who incorporates collaboration and critical thinking into the

assessment was described as being important. Cultural competency within this theme

refers to the assessor’s understanding of the family’s culture, their ability to approach

families in a cultural relevant manner and their ability to appreciate the role of culture in

families. Reflexivity is identified often in the literature as a key element to assessment

work, assessors must be keenly aware of their social location, that of the agency and

critically affect on how these positions may impact the assessment itself as well as the

outcomes (Fairbairn & Strega, 2015). From the focus group, this reflexivity was

highlighted as important because so much is depending on the neutrality and objectivity

of the practitioner.

An assessor who is respectful with the families they work with and incorporates

this element into their work with the family was described within the theme of respect.

“A respectful relationship is always in the child’s best interests” (Fairbairn & Strega,

2015). An assessor who can see strengths in families and caregivers was also identified


65

as crucial. Comments organized within this theme specifically relate to the strengths-

based perspective of the assessor themselves.

Practitioner proximity described a group of comments that suggested that an

assessor or practitioner who lives within a community may best be able to assess a

prospective kinship family. The comments suggest that an assessor who possesses direct

community knowledge may best be able to complete a home assessment for kinship

families.

Professional Support. The final organizing theme within Assessor

Characteristics is Professional Supports. Comments in this area described supervision,

support and mentorship and ensuring that current evidence is incorporated into home

assessment practice.

The assessor’s ability to access supervision and opportunities for support and

mentorship were described as being crucial to this area of practice. Providing

opportunities or ensuring that current evidence is incorporated into assessment practice

was also identified. It should be noted that Fairbairn and Strega (2015) suggest caution

and reflection in the consideration of evidence-based practice to consider the heavy

influence of socio-political ideologies as well as personal and professional biases on

what we consider to be evidence.

Important Areas to Address

The next global theme represents data that identified important areas to address

within the home assessment and required elements required within the home assessment

report. This impacts practice at the mirco level or direct practice with the family, but

may be influenced by the organization. Thus they are further away from the center


66

circle. However, depending on the home assessor’s skill these elements can be

experienced differently by a potential caregiver. The thematic map for this global theme

is represented below. Examples of comments in this area were divided into caregiver

characteristics, child’s needs, and analysis of the information and detailed in the

Important Areas table in Appendix E.

Thematic Network Map – Important Areas to Address


67

Caregiver Characteristics. A number of elements under caregiver

characteristics were identified and comments were categorized under this organizing

theme. They included: commitment, family makeup, caregiver skills, environment,

respect of culture and soft skills, which included emotion, values and collaboration.

Commitment describes comments that described a potential caregiver’s

commitment to a child and their case plan which could be reunification with their parents

or remaining in the kinship home long term. The focus group suggested going beyond

the notion of commitment and suggested also considering motivation. The focus group

felt that motivation is different than commitment and should be evaluated specifically.

Motivation is currently an area requiring evaluation in Alberta home assessments. The

focus group also suggested considering the evaluation of economic motivation.

Family makeup describes comments that described the importance of analysis of

the whole family structure being included in the assessment. These comments also

highlighted specifically that Indigenous families make look different than families of the

dominant culture. An assessor should be cognizant of this while assessing this area.

The focus group provided many comments in this area and discussed the

importance of evaluating possible impacts that age could play on family dynamics. The

focus group also identified the importance of understanding potential changes in roles

post placement. From a family structural perspective, roles can change if, for example,

the grandmother is caring for a grandchild, but has children in the home of similar age.

In this case the child placed (the grandchild) is in relationship with the other children in

the home as siblings rather than cousins, aunt/niece, etc. This may not be the case if the

family unit is not nuclear in composition as is common in Western families, and more


68

communal as is common in traditional Indigenous communities (Fairbairn & Strega,

2015). Comments in the secondary data did suggest that Indigenous families can look

different than those of the dominant culture.

Caregiver skill included two different subthemes. These were parenting skills

and knowledge that caregivers may already possess or need to be trained to. An

assessment would include analysis on what the family’s parenting skills are or what their

approach to parenting has been in the past. It would also include commentary on the

specific knowledge the parents possess, which could be specific to the unique or, in some

cases, special needs of the child. The focus group commented that kinship families may

not have the same degree of skill as foster parents may have. Data also suggested a need

to assess the caregiver’s environment to ensure it is stable for a child. Respect of culture

is noted in the data and while one of the benefits of kinship care is connection to culture,

there are situations where children are placed with significant others who are not family

members or there is not a shared culture between the paternal or maternal extended

family. Respect of the child’s culture(s) becomes relevant in these situations.

The data described a number of elements such as the caregiver’s values, emotions

and collaboration. These were grouped together and themed as soft skills or skills that

consider emotion and affection. Comments in the data described the importance of a

child experiencing love and affection in a potential kinship home and the importance that

these be incorporated in the home assessment. The focus group had a number of thoughts

to consider in the evaluation of love and its subjectivity. Discussion suggested a need to

ensure reflexivity of the practitioner in their evaluation and assessment of these areas.

Because of the subjectivity of this issue, the focus group commented it is important the


69

practitioner have personal insight into how they are evaluating it. There was much

discussion and cautioning on the assessment of these soft skills within the focus group

discussion.

Connection to family is more often facilitated in kinship placements than other

out of care placements and the data highlighted the importance of ensuring caregivers are

willing to facilitate through the assessment. This area was another area of discussion

with the focus group. There appeared to be two components to this: willingness to

collaborate with the caseworkers and willing to collaborate with the family.

The focus group also suggested the need to look at history, grief and loss and

trauma within the assessment. This would suggest an assumption from the focus group

that caregiver’s have a history of trauma and grief and loss. Interestingly, the secondary

data identified the focus on history as being a barrier in the home assessment process.

This will be discussed further under Home Assessment Process and is noted here in the

findings, but is not identified as a theme.

Child’s Needs. Another identified theme important to include in the home

assessment is the identification and understanding of the child’s needs and how

caregivers will be able to meet these needs. Comments were themed according to love,

stability and permanency, special needs, cultural connection, and relationship with

family and community.

Comments categorized in the theme of love, referred specifically to a child’s need

for love. Similar to comments themed as soft skills under caregiver characteristics, these

comments were specific to articulating a child’s needs rather than assessing a caregiver’s

abilities to meet emotional needs. Comments regarding a child’s need for stability and


70

permanency were themed together and describe comments that indicated a child needs

consistent and stable caregiving and minimal moves between placements.

A caregiver’s ability to meet a child’s special needs was identified as being

crucial. This would include trauma informed approaches, disability, and the ability to

provide specialized supports when necessary. In considering research that suggests

many children placed in kinship care have come into care due to issues of addictions

(Falconnier et al., 2010), special needs due to possible prenatal substance exposure are a

consideration.

Comments also described a child’s need for cultural connection and relationship

with family and community. These elements are often met through placement in kinship

care because the child is placed with family or community. However, as described with

caregiver characteristics, there are circumstances in kinship care placements where these

need to be considered. For example, if paternal and maternal sides of the family do not

share the same culture or a kinship placement is outside of the community.

Analysis of the Information. Another area identified was the analysis of the

assessment itself. It was described that the report should contain both narrative and

analytical elements. This was a source of considerable conversation within the focus

group. It was suggested that the assessment must be more than just a narrative story

about the family, but that it must contain considerable analysis into the family’s ability

and potential to care for the identified child.

Home Assessment Process

As mapped below, the next global theme is the Home Assessment Process itself.

Conceptually, these comments are still micro in nature and impact the experience for the


71

family at the kitchen table during an assessment. However, as they move further away

from the center of model, they are more impacted by macro practice, policy decisions,

and the political climate.

Organizing themes identified in detail in the corresponding table in Appendix E

include comments that described themes specific to the home assessment tool, a user-

friendly process, barriers, an ongoing assessment and a process that is collaborative.

Thematic Network Map – Home Assessment Process


72

Home Assessment Tool. Comments suggested that if a standardized home

assessment tool is to be used, it was important that it be consistent, reliable, succinct, and

strengths-based.

The comments categorized under strengths-based tool differed from the

comments describing a strengths-based practitioner. Here, they were specifically

focused on a strengths-based form, tool, or process rather than a practitioner who is

grounded in a strengths-based approach.

User-friendly Process. Other comments within the Home Assessment Process

identified the need for a user-friendly process. Within this organizing theme an

inclusive, timely and supported home assessment process was described. Participants

also described a home assessment process that focuses on relationship building.

Comments described a process that is inclusive. An inclusive assessment process

would recognize barriers that some participants may face such as language or geography

and ensure flexibility to meet the needs of the participants or potential caregivers.

A timely and supported home assessment was described as necessary in the

secondary data and highlighted the urgency of these assessments in considering that

children are potentially waiting placement while they are being done. In discussing this

theme, focus group participants highlighted the barriers that families or caregivers face in

completing required documentation or tasks related to completing the home assessment

in a timely manner. Suggestions highlighted the need for supports to be provided during

this process. As a result this theme was renamed to “timely and supported”. Some of the

elements of the conversation could have been themed under “barriers,” however the


73

comments were made in the context of a user-friendly home assessment process, and

they were coded and categorized under this section.

A process that recognizes and allows opportunity for the assessor to build a

relationship with the caregiver was described in the comments. The comments

categorized in this section were specific to a process that allows for relationship building

as opposed to the comments that were themed as Assessor Characteristics.

Barriers. Comments within the data also highlighted a number of barriers within

the current home assessment process. While there were comments related to barriers in

general, there were also comments that were focused more specifically on a lack of

understanding of Indigenous culture within the assessment and being judged negatively

as a result. Also, there were frustrations expressed at the current home assessment’s

focus on history without opportunity to discuss the context or areas of change.

Ongoing Assessment. The data described the need for the assessment to be

ongoing and not just a snapshot in time describing a caregiver and their home.

Comments described the importance of caregiver preparation, recruitment, matching and

support post assessment. Comments included within these organizing themes are related

to practice specific elements. Systematic issues on recruitment and caregiver supports

are included in systemic themes to be discussed later on.

The focus group provided commentary specifically on recruitment efforts within

the home assessment process. The focus group identified the risks of not deeply

exploring all potential caregivers and potentially excluding some. They also describe

that matching can speak to other themes as well. Matching overlaps in considering


74

parenting skills and caregiver characteristics under the global them of Important Areas to

Address.

Collaborative. A collaborative process was also described by the data. This

collaborative process was described as including involvement from the biological family,

identifying the child’s role in the assessment, Family Group Conferencing, the role of

community and the manner in which decision making occurs.

Comments regarding Family Group Conferencing (FGC) were intentionally

included within the secondary data analysis for a number of reasons. FGC was not

specifically identified in the comments as a crucial element to kinship home assessment.

However it was identified as a key practice important to the reform of child intervention

practice. FGC is suggested in the literature as a potential element in kinship care home

assessment and thus was included within this analysis. Furthermore, FGC has been

identified as an important process in the reunification of children and youth with their

extended family and community. This is also one of the intents of kinship care.

The focus group agreed that FGC was a crucial element to the home assessment.

The benefit to FGC was also identified as the ability to locate more possible caregivers

or even supports to the identified caregiver. There was also an identification that this

practice needs to happen more.

The role of community, involvement of biological family and child’s role in the

assessment all described notions that the community, biological family and child

respectively potentially have knowledge about potential caregivers and should be able to

have input into the approval of a kinship home. Decision-making speaks to the process

of deciding whether or not to approve or not approve a kinship home. Comments from


75

the secondary data sources highlighted a consideration that these occur as a group

decision-making process.

Conversation with the focus group of practitioners on decision making was more

focused on how to support the family in situations of non-approval. This reflects an

approach, similar to status quo, in which the decision is made by the professionals

assigned to the case and not the family or community through a group decision making

process.

Safety

Child safety and standards were significantly present throughout the data. As

such they were grouped into a global theme of Safety and visually represented in the

thematic network map below. This theme contains comments that were child focused in

nature and focused on micro practice issues. This global theme also contained more

macro level concepts and issues including safety standards and systemic or political

notions of standards as applied to community and are described in the Safety table found

in Appendix E.


76

Thematic Network Map - Safety

Child’s Safety. Safety for the child contained comments with themes specific to

environmental safety, physical safety, emotional safety and an environment that is free of

trauma. Comments describing an environment that is free of trauma describes a home

that is free of activities of risk or elements that would further expose the child to trauma.

The issue of further exposure to trauma is significant because it can be assumed children

seeking placement are in care and in need of placement because of past exposure to

trauma.

In the focus group, a great deal of discussion surrounded this topic and the family

dynamics that can impact kinship homes. In considering that some kinship homes may


77

have close relationships with the biological parents who may have been the source of

trauma leading a child to come into care, it is quite possible that there could be some

exposure. The issue then becomes how these can be mitigated, as it was felt by the focus

group that you cannot prevent some of this potential exposure through non-contact.

Contact is likely in situations where, for example, a child is being placed with a

grandmother who still cares for her son or daughter while also caregiving for her

grandchild.

Standards. An organizing theme in the area of safety was also standards.

Standards speak to social or formal expectations and requirements within a home.

Homes that meet these pre-determined standards are deemed to be safe. However

comments in the secondary data questioned who determines what these standards are and

how are they applied in different communities with different realities.

The focus group identified this as an ongoing challenge in practice. Particularly

they identified confusion and misunderstanding in what the standards are and how they

are applied. This leads to confusion in practice and in the ability to articulate the standard

itself.

There was also a keen awareness by the focus group of the role of poverty in this

area of standards and community standards. There was recognition that some home

assessment writers will confuse poverty with what is “safe enough”. This also highlights

that conceptually the issue of safety and standards is both a micro and macro issue.

Policy and Legislated Requirements As we continue moving outwards of the conceptual model, the data shows us

how policy and legislative requirements impact the home assessment. These themes are


78

highlighted in the figure below. While these elements do not “sit at the kitchen table”

with the potential caregivers and the assessor, they impact the experience and the

outcomes. These elements create the context around the home assessment and are within

the control of policy makers and program developers. Within this global theme and

identified in Appendix E, we have organizing themes of proceduralism or being rule-

based which includes themes of reporting and documenting requirements, risk

management, and principle-based practice. We also have organizing themes of Making

Kinship a Priority, which includes basic themes of flexible kinship criteria and

recognizing the rights of kinship caregivers. Caregiver Policies is also an organizing

theme.


79

Thematic Network Map – Policy and Legislated Requirements

Proceduralism. Proceduralism is a concept described by Munro (2011) as an

overarching focus on procedures in child welfare work which have created a “defensive

practice” where the need to document and adhere to process and procedure have

overridden a concern for children and direct work with children and families (p. 20). In

the focus group the impacts of this procedural and rule based manner of working was

also expressed. They described proceduralism creating fear amongst practitioners.


80

Proceduralism includes themes of risk management, reporting and documenting

requirements and proposed notions of principle-based practice to oppose proceduralism.

Munro (2011) states it would be ideal if risk management could ensure eradication of

risk, but it is simply not possible. The search for certainty in an uncertain field of

practice, creates complexity and difficulty. “Uncertainty and risk are features of child

protection work: risk management can only reduce risks, not eliminate them” (Munro,

2011, p. 23). Caseworkers and practitioners in this field of practice have come to believe

that it is their inherent responsibility to prevent all harm to children and even though

human behaviour is unpredictable, child protection professionals feels they will be held

accountable for any sort of unpredictable harm (Fairbairn & Strega, 2015). As a result

strict and rigid procedures are implemented and expected which do not allow for

flexibility for families.

Make Kinship a Priority. Make kinship a priority is an organizing theme,

which also included a number of comments related to kinship care in comparison to

foster care or other out of home placement. This included comments that suggested

flexibility in kinship criteria and a recognition of the rights of kinship caregivers. The

focus group further recognized concerns that in practice, kinship caregivers do not seem

to have the same amount of rights as foster parents. The focus group identified a number

of policy and legislated requirements that have created challenges in making kinship care

a priority. Legislation can sometimes be contradictory in that it supports placement with

kin as a priority, but also allows for foster parents to review or appeal these decisions to

place with kin. In those cases foster parents receive more rights than a kinship caregiver

and the caseworker or home assessment practitioner’s hands may be tied.


81

Caregiver Policies. The secondary data highlighted challenges from caregiver

policies that are unclear. The focus group also highlighted that some policies are just not

feasible. For example, a discussion was held on the reasonableness that a caregiver can

protect a child from future trauma if they are going to be having ongoing contact with

their biological parent. As well, some policies are barriers to normal family functioning.

One example provided was a policy that states the biological parent cannot reside in the

kinship caregiver’s home while the child is placed there. However, the focus group

identified circumstances where a biological parent having made significant gains and

changes wanted to live in the kinship caregiver’s home. The case plan at that time was

for a return to the parent’s care. However while the child remained in kinship care, that

biological parent could not reside in the home. This can become a barrier for placement

and also a barrier towards reunification and family healing overall.

Systemic Finally, the outer ring of the conceptual model, are systemic issues that impact

kinship caregiving or the ability for kin to care for in general. These are concepts that

require multiple level of government to address and may also require significant societal

shifts in attitude and approach. They also remind us that kinship care is a complex issue

beyond its assessment. Organizing themes under systemic issues as described in the

figure below are Resources, Colonization, Family Preservation, Collaborative Casework,

Supports for Caregivers, and Worries with kinship. The table in Appendix E identifies

the themes and examples of comments.


82

Thematic Network Map - Systemic

Resources. A number of comments from the secondary data identified a lack of

resources as a systemic barrier in Indigenous communities. Challenges in housing

resources were specifically identified and described as being impactful on the ability for

kinship caregivers to care for children.

Colonization. Many comments described impacts of colonization in the

secondary data. Comments also more specifically included respecting Indigenous


83

knowledge, issues of jurisdiction, respecting Indigenous casework practice, and

respecting traditional connections to family and community.

Jurisdiction refers to challenges in negotiating between federal, provincial, and

on reserve jurisdiction. Respecting Indigenous knowledge is a key element in the

consideration of an anti-colonizing approach. Indigenous knowledge includes the “good-

sense ideas and cultural knowledges of local peoples concerning the everyday realities of

living” (Sefa Dei, 2000. P. 114). The use and recognition of Indigenous knowledge,

becomes an “entry point” into an anti-colonizing approach (Sefa Dei, 2000, p. 117).

Respecting traditional connections to family and community builds upon the

recognitions of Indigenous knowledge, but these comments are more specific to the

traditions of connections to extended family and community within Indigenous cultures.

The theme of Indigenous casework practice recognizes social work practice developed,

practiced, and recognized as leading practice in Indigenous communities.

Family Preservation. Comments were made and themed as Family Preservation

that referred to the notion that if children were supported to remain with their biological

families in the first place, out of home placements would not be required.

Collaborative Casework Practice. Collaborative Casework Practice describes

comments that sought overall approaches to casework that are collaborative and reflect

shared decision-making. These are comments that were not specific to collaboration in

kinship assessment, but casework in general. The focus group also identified this

importance of collaborative casework. They highlighted the importance that kinship

caregivers be part of the service team meeting and understand the case plan. In their


84

experience, that does not happen and makes it difficult for a kinship caregiver to

successfully work collaboratively.

Supports for Caregivers. Supports for caregivers were described in a number of

comments. Because these supports are beyond the practice scope of an assessor and may

also speak to supports within the community that involve a number of systems, they have

been themed under the systemic issues global theme. They could have been under the

policy and legislative requirements, however they are larger in nature as they involve

community and other system responses. Support for caregivers were comments general

in nature, but also more specific and spoke to financial supports, services, mentorship,

access to training, and respite.

The focus group identified a number of challenges in the area of financial

supports. While these challenges may not be specific to home assessment, these supports

impact caregivers’ experiences and thus their ability to provide quality care to the child

placed in their home. The focus group identified a frustration and barriers with

caseworker attitudes in funding kinship care.

It was also identified by the focus group that the financial supports create a

challenge or create dependency. This may happen if a kinship caregiver makes decisions

based on financial supports, which are being provided during the course of caregiving.

However, later these supports may be taken away if the child returns home. For

example, a caregiver may choose to move into a larger home to facilitate the placement.

The system supported them to make that move, but once the children have returned the

caregiver must move again in order to be able to afford their housing. It was also noted

by the focus group that kinship caregivers may not receive the same degree of supports,


85

once they pursue a permanency status (ie: private guardianship or adoption) under the

Supports for Permanency program.

The focus group further commented on the need to offer continued services in

navigating the various systems and resources that may potentially be supporting the child

who is placed in the kinship caregiver’s home. This is similar to the focus group’s

identification of a need for a support person to help the home assessment process, but

this speaks to the importance of support in navigating systems overall and for an ongoing

period.

It was also identified by the focus group that the policies of other systems need to

understand the unique nature of kinship care and be aware when their policies create a

barrier to those supports. An example provided was that kinship caregivers are no longer

eligible for day care subsidy or that the federal government has been considering taxing

the maintenance payments that kinship caregivers receive.

Worries. The theme of worries grouped together comments that expressed

concern with kinship care in general or the potential for negative dynamics or

experiences.

Areas that the focus group found missing from the themes of crucial elements

included a lack of mention around initial assessment, which is assessment upon

immediate placement. They also suggested a need for more focus on getting concrete

support in the home assessment process such as a support person to help getting the

documents gathered, accessing supporting documentation or help with language and

literacy in the documents. The focus group also suggested various wording changes in


86

some elements. The discrepancy between the community comments and the focus group

will be discussed further in the next section.


87

Discussion

The findings and themes highlight the complexity of kinship care home

assessment. The intent of a kinship care home assessment, as indicated in the literature

and confirmed in the focus group conversation, is to compare the care that a caregiver

intends to provide a child with an analysis of what the caregiver reasonably can provide

a child based on a number of aspects. The complexity comes from a number of

systemic, political and legislative influences. Adding to the complexity are the

influences of values, worldviews, and standards. These all become the lenses through

which an assessment is viewed and analyzed making assessor characteristics crucial to

the experience and the process in general. However, the interplay of all six global

themes; Assessor Characteristics, Important Areas to Address, Home Assessment

Process, Safety, Policy and Legislated Requirements and Systemic, are crucial elements

in understanding this area of home assessment practice. They all influence the practice

at the kitchen table.

The continuing legacy of colonization exists and is apparent in the analysis of this

issue. The assumptions surrounding who gets to decide what is safe enough or good

enough for a child strikes at the core of colonization and the institutions, legislation and

other structures that surround each decision suggest structural colonization. For example

the reported difficulties with meeting imposed standards, coupled with a lack of

resources, further marginalizes these families.

Data from the community suggested a desire to return to traditional ways of

communal caring for children through the involvement of community, elders, and

extended family. Yet, a western child intervention system demands a level of


88

proceduralism, which does not align with the traditional, Indigenous ways. Still, it

continues to be the priority and drives current practice.

Proceduralism drives the priorities in practice, but it has also become status quo,

and makes it difficult to entertain the possibility that another approach could be within

the realm of possibility. As the participants identify what was required in kinship home

assessment practice, it is possible that their description was also influenced by status quo

and a discomfort that any deviation from status quo is not only wrong, but potentially

dangerous. No one ever wants a child to be placed at risk in any placement, but does this

mean that status quo is the only way to reach a level that is “safe enough”? Critical

theorists suggest that there cannot be one universal truth or approach as there are

complex existing realities (Swift & Callahan, 2009).

Part of the current status quo is the use of a standardized assessment tool. The

rise of risk assessment tools was welcomed in the mid-1990’s (Swift & Callahan, 2009).

However there has since been recognition that these risk assessment tools apply

universal truths and assumptions, that fail to recognize social context and individuality

(Swift & Callahan, 2009). The use of a standardized assessment tool for caregivers has

been controversial and largely rejected by the Indigenous community (Beaucage, 2011).

This rejection drove the DM Summit meetings which are one of the secondary data

sources. Noted in the DM Summit discussions, this tool was rejected by the Indigenous

community, but it was welcomed within the government agencies as an approach that

would create strengthened assessments. This position supports a belief that a

standardized assessment can prevent future harm (Fairbairn & Strega, 2015).

Standardized assessment tools have generally been found to be problematic for use with


89

marginalized populations. These tools neglect the social and political context in which

individual problems appear to arise. Standardized assessments can reproduce the

gendered, classed and raced constructions and parenting expectations of the dominant

culture and impose them on marginalized populations (Fairbairn & Strega, 2015; Choate

& McKenzie, 2015). They become colonizing actions.

Another aspect to the status quo is a focus on history and historical concerns.

These findings suggest the focus on history becomes an unnecessary barrier; however the

focus group identified the need to address history and potential “legacies” in order to

fully assess a potential caregiver’s suitability. While many acknowledge the challenges

related to the unique demographics for many kinship caregivers such as poverty, health

challenges, other structural issues, the literature review did not indicate past trauma or

legacies for kinship caregivers. In fact Lorkovitch et al. (2004) found this attitude

amongst caseworkers created barriers and were unfounded.

The findings also suggest that a “one-size” fits all approach to kinship care home

assessment is not appropriate in a diverse society. The measurement of what is “good-

enough” or “safe enough” may not be the same for every population or community.

Critics of standardized assessment tools suggest this is the case for standardized

assessments. If dominant culture definitions of parenting are being used, then

Indigenous families and parents are at an immediate disadvantage (Choate & McKenzie,

2015).

Valerie O’Brien identified a conceptual model similar to that which I have

presented here. It incorporates a systems approach to considering what impacts the

assessment of kinship homes and the context in which they exist (O’Brien, 2014).


90

However, elements like cultural diversity or impacts from colonization are not

mentioned within her model. This is likely because her model is developed for a

European (Irish) population where marginalized populations exist, but not within a

context of colonization.

It is also interesting to note that caregiver training is a significant part of the

current kinship care program in Alberta (Alberta Human Services, 2016) and current

status quo. Training for kinship caregivers was identified only briefly in the data. It

would be worth considering how community members value this in comparison to

practitioners. Training could be considered an element that meets systemic needs for

accountability, but perhaps it is not a meaningful support for caregivers or seen as crucial

by practitioners.

The concept of love demonstrates how groups differ on the crucial elements. It

was uncomfortable for the focus group of practitioners as they saw it as too complex and

difficult to measure or analyze in an assessment, as it is strongly dependent on the

practitioner’s lens or worldview. It was, however, identified by the community as being

very important and relevant. While practitioners agreed that a child being loved and

experiencing love was important, they reported in the focus group that love may not get

the caregiver through difficult times or through the challenges of caregiving. To the

contrary, the community reported that “love can make up for a lack of skills, but skills

cannot make up for a lack of love.” Experts may not agree that this emotional interaction

exceeds the importance of westernized skill and insight in parenting, however from an

anti-colonizing perspective, the community’s position must be respected and honoured as

the authority.


91

Similarly, the concept of standards is significant within this theoretical

framework. The community data described standards as colonizing. As the standards

being applied are western standards, we must accept that they are colonizing.

Practitioners using reflexivity recognize the influence of western standards and their

application with marginalized and Indigenous communities as problematic. However,

western standards are entrenched in the practice through environmental checklists and

policy requirements. The question of “whose standards” must be addressed. However,

in order to address the issue from an anti-colonizing perspective, the community must

define these standards. The question remains whether or not the system will be able to

accommodate and accept an external definition and identification of community

standards.

In comparing the focus group information to that of the secondary data from the

community, differing world-views becomes apparent. It appears that Indigenous

families are being viewed through a western lens. For example, comments relating to

role shift and the impacts of these shifts on caregivers and children assume a nuclear

family approach to family structure. Indigenous communities traditionally provide care

to their children and elders communally. The assumption is that a role shift from

grandmother to parent may be difficult. However, this may not be the case in an

Indigenous family or in other cultures where communal and multi-generational family

caregiving is common. This challenge may be an assumption based on the dominant

culture’s worldview.

Alberta recently adopted an approach to principle-based practice. One of these

principles is reflective of anti-colonizing practice (Alberta Human Services, 2014).


92

Principle-based practice requires reflexivity on the part of the practitioner, but also from

within the organization. Rather than focusing on what we do, principle-based practice

focuses on how we do the work (Lonne, Parton, Thomson & Harries, 2009). It means, in

this case, that in following this anti-colonizing principle workers must focus on how to

practice from an anti-colonizing manner and less on procedures and process that is what

we do.

As part of this implementation, the province has provided tools and strategies for

staff to be reflective on their worldview and the effects that particular worldview has on

the decisions being made for children and youth. This approach would support reflective

decisions being made in the assessing and approval of kinship caregivers. However,

these decisions continue to be made within the context of a structured home assessment

process, an approach to safety and standards, and legislation that has not been created to

reflect the principles. Principle-based practice must be integrated throughout practice to

truly practice from these principles (Lonne et al., 2009). This suggests that an anti-

colonizing approach must be integrated throughout the home assessment process,

assessment tools, policies, and standards.

In addition to the assessment of kinship caregivers, the data also highlights the

importance of recognizing supports for kinship care as significant. Literature suggests

kinship caregivers receive less contact from caseworkers compared to non-kin caregivers

(Fuentes-Palaez, 2015; Keller et al., 2001). Participants in both the secondary data sets

and the focus groups described ongoing supports and services to be a crucial element in

kinship care practice. This is a worthy consideration in the analysis of kinship care

practice in general.


93

Implications for Practice and Further Inquiry

Social workers practicing in the field of home assessments must contemplate the

crucial elements and also employ a critical ecological approach to this work. Aligning

with the themes identified as crucial elements of home assessment, a critical ecological

approach considers a potential caregiver’s social context. Assessment from a critical

ecological perspective reflects on the “goodness of fit” between the person and the

circumstances of their environment (Rothery, 2008). This assessment will inform what

the caregiver intends to do in the care of the child and what they are capable of doing

based on a number of influences. This approach would also inform the supports and

services required to mitigate any potential challenges in the care of a potential child. The

analysis of this study has identified elements to include in an assessment reflective of

critical ecological approach. It also identifies the systemic influences important to

consider in the assessment. Without this theoretical approach, assessments can be

oppressive and continue colonizing legacies.

This study can inform how social workers completing home assessments should

be supported by child welfare organizations through training, supervision and

mentorship. It also suggests the characteristics that social workers practicing in this area

should possess and considerations in the hiring and performance management of these

staff.

Leaders within child welfare organizations should consider the micro and macro

elements of this practice and their opportunities to support both areas. Leaders may

make operational and human resource decisions that support staff to integrate the crucial

elements into their practice and meet community needs. However, they also have


94

opportunities to advocate for systemic, or policy and legislative changes that are

suggested here to impact kinship caregivers and assessment. The data suggests potential

areas to consider in ensuring kinship caregivers are appropriately and adequately

assessed in considering their roles and experiences. With this data, a practitioner could

inform their practice by considering what elements they bring with them to a home

assessment and its interviews. Policy makers and program developers can also consider

these elements in their decision making on kinship care program design, supports,

training, etc. However these crucial elements should not be used to inform the

development of a standardized assessment tool.

In this area of practice, standardized assessment should be approached with

caution. The dominant culture’s notions of parenting, safety, standards and the ‘good

enough parent’ could be irrelevant to marginalized group including Indigenous

populations. Therefore it could be further suggested that the crucial elements for

assessment in one community or population, are different than others based on values,

history, tradition and social norms. In the data references to the differences between

Indigenous cultures or other multicultural communities and “our culture” were

mentioned. This again suggests the development of an approach that suits the dominant

culture, may not fit all cultures. I would caution that the crucial elements identified in

this research, should not be used to create standardized assessment tools. Rather, it could

inform practice, process, legislation, policy and other systemic issues.

This study focused specifically on the impacts of kinship home assessment

practices on Indigenous children, caregivers and families. Because a great majority of

children in the care of child welfare are Indigenous, an Indigenous focus is justified.


95

Moreover, Ban (2005) suggests that non-indigenous populations can benefit from

Indigenous approaches in child welfare programs and policies. Similar to the

implementation of Family Group Conferencing in New Zealand, Indigenous approaches

can be advantageous to the dominant culture as well.

The complexity of the issue is evident in the sheer amount of themes presented in

the findings. While it could have been possible to continuously refine and widen themes

in order to have a more interpretive description of the themes, I opted for a descriptive

approach. The descriptive approach keeps the data closer to that which was presented by

the community and participants and honours their voice by keeping the findings more

closely represented by their words. An interpretive approach would have made a number

of assumptions, which could very likely by erroneous or colonizing. Particularly so

because of the secondary data methodology, staying close to the comments was

important to ensure authenticity as it is difficult to be inductive without relationship to

the participants or data (Irwin & Winterton, 2011). Were there the opportunity to

reconnect with the community for member checking or confirmation of the data, a more

interpretive approach would have been possible.

Participatory action research is done collaboratively with participants or insiders

of an organization (Rudestam & Newton, 2015) and would be an effective way to further

understand the crucial elements of kinship care. This type of approach requires

participants and researchers become co-researchers and partners in the process. While the

elements will need to be refined by and accepted by participants in such a research

design, this approach would ensure an anti-colonizing approach to a shift in practice.


96

Limitations of the Study A limitation in secondary data analysis is that the data is only as good as the

primary data methodology. Some limitations in the methodology of both data sets were

noted. For example in the community conversations, comments were not audio recorded

and the data that was used in this secondary data analysis was that from facilitator notes

taken from table conversations. Because notes were taken with pen and paper by note

takers, there were no opportunities for participants to comment on the accuracy of the

recording. Some of the comments recorded did not provide context or detail and for the

purposes of secondary data analysis were unusable. As a result, some comments were

unusable due to the quality of the note taking. Examples include:

Young girl at our table shared her story of foster care. Then spoke.

Non Aboriginal person had her perspective and our perspective-embraced/affirmed our perspective-we share I think some …….. and making these kinds of things a priority. 1 bedroom, 1bathroom, 1 bedroom

It should be noted, however, that considering the quantity of comments from the

community conversations (13,000), there were very few that were unusable (10).

The data from the DM Summit meetings was recorded using flip charts. I would

suggest these notes are more accurately reflective of the participants’ comments than by

using a note taker. By using flip charts, there are natural opportunities for participants to

provide feedback based on the notes they are able to see.

A further limitation in the design is recognition that the comments from the data

sets were not specifically related to kinship care. While many comments reference

kinship care, extended family caregiving, family relationships, etc it can only be assumed


97

that the participants were specifically commenting on kinship care. Some data from the

DM summit meetings was unusable because they commented specifically on other forms

of caregiving assessment. Comments that described kinship care specifically or that

were not specific were included in the secondary data analysis. However, without

specific reference to kinship care or an ability to confirm the data, it cannot be certain

they referred to kinship care. Considering that the elements for stranger care – foster

care and adoption– may not be relevant to kinship care, this is a limitation.

In the analysis, a single coder was used. This can be a limitation because the

analysis relies on one person’s interpretation of the data. This limitation was mitigated

through regular journaling and memoing throughout the analysis.

The data in the secondary analysis is from 2011-2013. It should be noted, a

number of policy changes may have impacted the relevance of some of the comments

made in the primary data collection. By 2016, a number of kinship policy changes had

been made which may or may not have impacted some of the comments made under the

policy and legislative requirement theme. For example kinship policy in Alberta was

amended in 2014 to be more enabling by removing requirement for managerial approval

and financial stability requirements. This quite possibly could have addressed comments

such as

Kinship care has a lot more potential. Need to look more into this and reduce barriers/policies that hinder kinship care. The focus group provided an opportunity for practitioners in the field of kinship

care home assessment to provide comment on the crucial elements identified in the

secondary data analysis. While this created an opportunity for feedback from experts in

the field and also ensure rigour within the research design, it should be noted that this


98

process functions somewhat contradictory to an anti-colonizing approach. An anti-

colonizing approach would accept the comments from the Indigenous community as

being experts. A true anti-colonizing approach would have brought the comments to the

community to provide the feedback and not to a group of experts who are member of

dominant and colonizing society. Lincoln also advocates for the use of community as

“arbiter of quality” (Lincoln, 1995, p. 280).

Because of the nature of this secondary data analysis, not all elements described

by Lincoln to ensure qualitative rigor could be followed. For example, Lincoln also

identified reciprocity and the sharing of perquisites (1995). Without an established

relationship with the participants, this sharing and reciprocity are difficult or not

possible. Lincoln does acknowledge that some criteria may be applicable in certain

settings or stages of inquiry (1995). This applies for this project.

Indigenous research methodologies would also advocate for the inclusion of

community as this arbiter and also as a participant (Smith, 1999). Historically, research

with Indigenous people was a colonizing activity. Indigenous people were studied,

observed, and documented as the ‘other’ by members of dominant, western society

(Smith, 1999). The community agreed to the use of this information to further inform

child welfare practice and policy, however they should have been consulted in its use and

to be engaged as an arbiter.


99

My Journey

I chose an anti-colonizing and critical ecological approach as my theoretical

framework because they resonated with me. Upon reflection when I was a home

assessment practitioner, I always struggled with the idea of “how am I to judge” if this

family is good enough for this child or not. We always want to children to be safe and

nurtured, and the authority to decide who would be safe and nurturing is difficult.

Since delving into the data and comparing the various perspectives on home

assessment, I feel even more strongly that an anti-colonizing approach is the appropriate

one and one that is necessary in this field of practice. Without reflecting upon status quo

and the policy or legislation that permeates and protects our practice from changing, we

are perpetuating colonization in contemporary times. We cannot practice in a manner

that presumes extended family or community are a potential risk to children and youth

and required the same extended family or community to prove their worth. This

presumption is not different than action taken in the height of residential school trauma

or the sixties scoop.

Community was able to identify what is crucial in the caring for children in the

context of kinship care: they used words like love, connection, voice, and care.

Practitioners and leadership use words like analysis, standards, requirements, and

documentation. We are left to consider what is more important to the life of a child: love

or documents?

My intention was to identify what the crucial elements of kinship care home

assessment are based on the feedback from the Indigenous community, practitioners, and


100

child intervention leadership. A model reflective of critical ecological system theory was

created based on the secondary data analysis and a focus group source of data to inform

this descriptive model. The merging of the perspectives of all involved, could be viewed

as collaborative and an integration of perspectives, however I reflect on the elements of

colonization that crept their way into my research design. Seeking approval and

feedback from a group of practitioners rather than the community is such an example.

By looking at the individual comments from the community conversations, I was

transformed into hearing the voices of the community that are too often silenced and

have been silenced for centuries. There is value in honouring these voices and looking to

these voices for direction and opportunity for future social policy decisions. The

expertise is within the community and the community shared their expertise with us. We

must honour it and act on it, just as they asked us to do. When the Indigenous

community’s expert voice truly guides our work, we will move towards an anti-

colonizing context.


101

References

Alberta Government (2014). What we heard: A summary of the community

conversations. Retrieved from:

http://humanservices.alberta.ca/documents/community-conversations-what-we-

heard.pdf.

Alberta Human Services (2014). Child Intervention Practice Framework. Retrieved from:

http://humanservices.alberta.ca/abuse-bullying/17242.html.

Alberta Human Services (2015). Becoming a kinship caregiver. Retrieved from:

http://humanservices.alberta.ca/foster-kinship-care/15440.html.

Alberta Human Services (2016). Children in care. Retrieved from:

http://humanservices.alberta.ca/abuse-bullying/17183.html.

Aronson, J. (1995). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(1),

1-3.

Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytical tool for qualitative

research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405.

Ban, P. (2005). Aboriginal child placement principle and family group conferences.

Australian Social Work, 58(4), 384-394.

Beaucage, J. (2011). Children first: The Aboriginal advisor’s report on the status of

Aboriginal child welfare in Ontario. Retrieved from:

http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/english/documents/topics/aboriginal/child_

welfare_EN.pdf.


102

Berrick, J. (1997). Assessing quality of care in kinship and foster family care. Family

Relations, 46(3), 273-280.

Bishop, L. (2009). Ethical sharing and reuse of qualitative data. Australian Journal of

Social Issues. 44(3), 255-272.

Blackstock, C. (2004). Keeping the promise: The Convention of the Rights of the Child

and the lived experiences of First Nations Children and Youth. Retrieved from

http://site.ebrary.com/id/10079794?.

Blackstock, C. (2011) The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on First Nations Child

Welfare: Why if Canada wins, equality and justice lose. Children and Youth

Services Review, 33(1), 187-194.

Blakey, J.M. (2012). The best of both worlds: How kinship care impacts reunification.

Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 93(2), 103-

110.

Bodor, R., Makokis, L. & Friesen, S. (2014). Indigenous concepts and frameworks vital

for human service workers: The practice of omanitew. Journal for Services for

Children and Families, 7, 54-71.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Brisebois, K., Kernsmith, P.D., & Carcone, A.I. (2013). The relationship between

caseworker attitudes about kinship care and removal decisions. Journal of

Family Social Work, 16(5), 403-417.

Calder, M.C. & Talbot, C. (2006). Chapter 3- Contemporary Assessment: A Critique,

Assessment in kinship care. Russell House Publishing, Dorset, UK.


103

Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Province of Alberta. S 107 (2004).

Choate, P. & Mckenzie, A. (2015). Psychometrics in parenting capacity assessments: A

problem for Aboriginal parents. First People Child and Family Review, 10 (2),

31-43.

Christenson, B., & McMurty, J. (2007). A comparative evaluation of preservice training

of kinship and nonkinship foster/adoptive families. Child Welfare, 86(2), 125-

140.

Christenson, B., & McMurty, J. (2009). A longitudinal evaluation of the preservice

training and retention of kinship and nonkinship foster/adoptive families one and

a half years after training. Child Welfare, 88(4), 5-22.

Coakley, T.M., Cuddeback, Buehler, C., & Cox, M.E. (2007). Kinship foster parents

perceptions of factors that promote or inhibit successful fostering. Children and

Youth Services Review, 29, 92-109.

Connolly, M. (2006). Fifteen Years of Family Group Conferencing: Coordinators talk

about their experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. British Journal of Social

Work, 36, 523-540. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bch273.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and

evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Corti, l., Witzel, A., & Bishop, L. (2005). On the potentials and problems of secondary

analysis: An introduction to the FQS special issue on secondary analysis of

qualitative data. Research Forum: Qualitative Social, 6(1), Art. 49.


104

Crea, T.M., Barth, R.P. & Chintapalli, L.K. (2007). Home study methods for evaluating

prospective resource families: history, current challenges, and promising

approaches. Child Welfare, 86(2), 141-159.

Crea, T.M., Barth, R.P., Chintapalli, L. & Buchanan, R.L. (2009a). Structured home

study evaluations: Perceived benefits of SAFE versus conventional home studies.

Adoption Quarterly, 12, 78-99.

Crea, T.M., Barth, R.P., Chintapalli, L.K., & Buchanan, R.L. (2009b). The

implementation and expansion of SAFE: Frontline responses and the transfer of

technology to practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 903-910.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches (4th Ed.). Los Angeles, California: Sage.

Denby, R.W. (2011). Kinship liaisons: A peer-to-peer approach to supporting kinship

caregivers. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 217-225.

Fairbairn, M. & Strega, S. (2015). Anti-oppressive approaches to child protection:

Assessment and file recording. In J. Carriere & S. Strega (Eds.), Walking this

path together: Anti-racist and anti-oppressive child welfare practice (2nd ed.) (pp.

157-175). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Fernwood Publishing.

Falconnier, L.A., Tomasella, N.M., Doueck, H.J., Wells, S.J., Luckey, H. & Agathen,

J.M. (2010). Indicators of quality in kinship foster care. Families in Society: The

Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 91(4), 415-420.

Farmer, E. (2009). Making kinship care work. Adoption and Fostering, 33(3), 15-27.

Farmer, E. (2010). What outcomes relate to good placement outcomes in kinship care?

British Journal of Social Work, 40, 426-444.


105

Font, S. (2015). Are children safer with kin? A comparison of maltreatment risk in out-

of-home care. Children and Youth Services Review, 54, 20-29.

Fuentes-Pelaez, N., Amoros, P., Pastor, C., Molina, M.C., & Mateo, M. (2015).

Assessment in kinship foster care: A new tool to evaluate strengths and

weaknesses. Social Sciences, 4, 1-17. Doi: 10.3390/socsci4010001.

Gill, H., Higginson, L., & Napier, H. (2003). Family group conferences in permanency

planning. Adoption & Fostering, 27(2), 53-63. doi:

10.1177/030857590302700208

Gillies, V., & Edwards, R. (2005). Secondary analysis in exploring family and social

change: addressing the issue of context. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1),

Art. 44.

Government of Alberta, Children and Youth Services. (2009). Kinship Care Review

Report. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10397956?ppg=1.

Government of Canada. Statistics Canada. (2011). National Household Survey (NHS)-

Analytical products, 2011. Aboriginal People in Canada: First Nations, Métis and

Inuit. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa.

Greenwood, M. & DeLeeuw, S. (2006) Fostering indigeneity: The role of Aboriginal

mothers and Aboriginal early child care in response to colonial foster-care

interventions. In D.M. Lavell-Harvard & J. Corbiere Lavell (Eds.), Until our

hearts are on the ground: Aboriginal mothering, oppression, resistance and

rebirth. (pp. 173-183). Toronto, Ontario: Demeter Press.


106

Hammersley, M. (2010). Can we re-use qualitative data via secondary analysis? Notes

on some terminological and substantive issue. Sociological Research Online,

15(1), 1-13.

Hart, M.A. (2002). Seeking Mino-Pimatisiwin: An Aboriginal approach to healing.

Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Hart, M.A. (2009). Anti-colonial Indigenous Social Work: reflections on an Aboriginal

approach. In R. Sinclair, M.A. Hart & G. Bruyere (Eds.), Wicihitowin Aboriginal

social work in Canada (pp. 25-41). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Hegar, R.L. & Scannapieco, M. (2014). Kinship Care. In G.P. Mallon & P. Hess (Eds.),

Child welfare for the twenty-first century: A handbook of practices, policies and

programs. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Hinds, P.S., Vogel, R.J. & Clarke-Steffen, L. (1997). The possibilities and pitfalls of

doing a secondary analysis of a qualitative data set. Qualitative Health Research,

7(3), 408-424.

Hong, J.S., Algood, C.L., Chiu, Y-L, Lee, S. (2011). An ecological understanding of

kinship foster care in the United States. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20,

863-872.

Human Services. (2015). Child intervention information and statistics summary

2015/2016 third quarter (December) update. Retrieved from:

http://humanservices.alberta.ca/documents/child-intervention-info-stats-

summary-2015-16-q3.pdf.

Ing, R. (2006). Canada’s Indian residential schools and their impacts on mothering. In

D.M. Lavell-Harvard & J. Corbiere Lavell (Eds.), Until our hearts are on the


107

ground: Aboriginal mothering, oppression, resistance and rebirth. (pp. 157-172).

Toronto, Ontario: Demeter Press.

Irwin, S. & Winterton, M. (2011). Debates in qualitative analysis: critical reflections

(Timescapes Working Paper Series No. 4). Retrieved from:

http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/WP4-March-2011.pdf

Keller, T.E., Wetherbee, K., LeProhn, N.S., Payne, V., Sim, K. & Lamont, E.R. (2001).

Competencies and problem behaviours of children in family foster care:

Variations by kinship placement status and race. Children and Youth Services

Review, 23(12), 915-940.

Koh, E. (2010). Permanency outcomes of children in kinship and non-kinship foster care:

Testing the external validity of kinship effects. Children and Youth Services

Review, 32, 389-398.

Koh, E & Testa, M.F. (2011). Children discharged from kin and non-kin foster homes:

Do the risks of foster care re-entry differ? Children and Youth Services Review,

33, 1497-1505.

Lambert, V.A. & Lambert, C.E. (2010). Conducting a scholarly literature review. Pacific

Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 14(2), 101-111.

Leos-Urbel, L., Bess, R., & Geen, R. (2002). The evolution of federal and state policies

for assessing and supporting kinship caregivers. Children and Youth Services

Review, 24(1/2), 37-52.

Levi, Y. & Ellis, T.J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature

review in support of information systems research. Informing Science Journal, 9,

181-212.


108

Lincoln, Y. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research.

Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275-289.

Lonne, B., Parton, N., Thomson, J. & Harries, M. (2009). Reforming child protection.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Loppie, C. & Pauly, B. (2015). Indigenous families: Substance use and child welfare. In

J. Carriere & S. Strega (Eds.), Walking this path together: Anti-racist and anti-

oppressive child welfare practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 217-239). Winnipeg, Manitoba:

Fernwood Publishing.

Lorkovich, T.W., Piccola, T., Groza, V., & Marks, J. (2004). Kinship care and

permanence: guiding principles for policy and practice. Families in Society: The

Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 85 (2), 159-164.

Love, C. (2000). Family group conferencing: Cultural origins, sharing and appropriation-

a Maori reflection. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group

conferencing: New directions in community-centred child and family practice (pp

15-30). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Messing, J.T. (2006). From the child’s perspective: a qualitative analysis of kinship care

placements. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 1415-1434.

Mills, C.S., & Usher, D. (1996). A kinship care case management approach. Child

Welfare, 75(5), 600-618.

Ministry of Human Services (2014). Enhancement Act Policy Manual. Retrieved from:

humanservices.alberta.ca/documents.Enhancement-Act-Policy_Manual.pdf.

Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: Final report. United Kingdom:

The Stationery Office Limited.


109

O’Brien, V. (2012). The benefits and challenges of kinship care. Child Care in Practice,

18(2), 127-146.

O’Brien, V. (2014). Responding to the call; A conceptual model for kinship care

assessment. Child and Family Social Work, (19), 355-366.

Perry, G., Daly, D. & Kotler, J. (2012). Placement stability in kinship and non-kin foster

care: A Canadian study. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 460-465.

Pon, G., Gosine, K. & Phillips, D. (2011). Immediate response: Addressing anti-native

and anti-black racism in child welfare. International Journal of Child, Youth and

Family Studies, 3&4, 385-409.

Rothery, M. (2008). Critical ecological systems theory. In N. Coady & P. Leahmann

(Eds.), Theoretical perspectives for direct social work practice (pp. 89-118).

New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Rudestam, K.E. & Newton, R.R. (2015). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive

guide to content and process (4th Ed.). Los Angeles, California: Sage.

Scannapico, M., & Hegar, R.L. (1996). A nontraditional assessment framework for

formal kinship homes. Child Welfare, 75(5), 567-582.

Sefa Dei, G.J. (2000). Rethinking the role of Indigenous knowledges in the academy.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 111-132.

Selwyn, J. & Nandy, S. (2014). Kinship care in the UK: using census data to estimate the

extent of formal and informal care by relatives. Child and Family Social Work,

19, 44-54.

Shlonsky, A.R, & Berrick, J.D. (2001). Assessing and promoting quality in kin and

nonkin foster care. Social Service Review, 75(1), 60-83.


110

Sinha, V., Trocme, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Fast, E., Thomas Prokop, S., et al

(2011). Kiskisik Awasisak: Remember the children. Understanding the

overrepresentation of First Nations children in the child welfare system. Ontario:

Assembly of First Nations. Retrieved from:

http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/FNCIS-

2008_March2012_RevisedFinal.pdf.

Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples.

New York, NY: Zed Books Ltd.

Strega, S. & Carriere, J. (2015). Anti-racist and anti-oppressive child welfare. In J.

Carriere & S. Strega (Eds.), Walking this path together: Anti-racist and anti-

oppressive child welfare practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-24). Winnipeg, Manitoba:

Fernwood Publishing.

Swift, K. & Callahan, M. (2009). At risk: Social justice in child welfare and other

human services. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

Tamarack Institute (2016). Introduction: A new era in community building. Retrieved

from:http://tamarackcci.ca/files/cc2ed_introduction.pdf?__hstc=163327267.abcb

b030211d06f8428b2a3595305421.1460837777991.1460837777991.1460837777

991.1&__hssc=163327267.1.1460837777991&__hsfp=1667286275.

Terling-Watt, T. (2001). Permanency in kinship care: An exploration of disruption rates

and factors associated with placement disruption. Children and Youth Services

Review, 23 (2), 111-126.


111

Trocmé, N., Knoke, D., Blackstock, C., (2004) Pathways to the Overrepresentation of

Aboriginal Children in Canada’s Child Welfare System. Social Service Review,

78 (4), 577-600.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2012). Canada, Aboriginal peoples,

and residential schools: They came for the children. Retrieved from:

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/cvrc-trcc/IR4-4-2012-

eng.pdf.

Tuckett, A.G. (2005). Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher’s

experience. Contemporary Nurse, 19(1-2), 75-87.

Turnell, A. (2012). The Signs of Safety: Comprehensive Briefing Paper. Retrieved from:

www.signsofsafety.net/briefing-paper.

Turnell, A. & Essex, S. (2014). It takes a village: Placing grandparents and extended

family at the center of safeguarding vulnerable children. In D. Pitch (Ed.) Inside

kinship care: Understanding family dynamics and providing effective support (pp

96-121). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Whiteside, M., Mills, J. & McCalman, J. (2012). Using secondary data for grounded

theory analysis. Australian Social Work, 65(4), 504-516.

Winokur, M., Crawford, G., Longobardi, C. & Valentine, D. (2008). Matched

comparison of children in kinship care and foster care on child welfare outcomes.

Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 89(3), 338-

347.

Victorian Government Department of Human Services (2002). Aboriginal Child

Placement Principle. Retrieved from:


112

http://www.cyf.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/17083/placement_aborigin

al_cppguide_2002.pdf


113

Appendix A

Consent Form: Focus Group

Name of Researcher, Faculty, Department, Telephone & Email :

Graduate Student:

Julie Mann-Johnson, RSW, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary 780-460-8494 [email protected]

Principle Investigator:

Anne-Marie McLaughlin, PhD, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary Title of Project:

Identifying the Crucial Elements of Kinship Care Home Assessment

This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. If you want more details about something mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying information. The University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board has approved this research study.

Purpose of the Study:

This project will explore social work practice in the area of kinship care. This study will identify the crucial elements required for kinship care home assessments in Alberta. These elements can then be used to inform kinship home assessment practice. The literature suggests that children placed in kinship care achieve more positive. Even so, practice and policy regarding kinship care has been slow to develop and in most jurisdictions foster care and adoption policies were applied to kinship care. Literature suggests the experience for kinship caregivers is very different from stranger care – adoption and foster care. As a result the home assessment process may require a unique approach with unique elements. Many public consultations and information gathering events have occurred in recent years within government in Alberta. This study endeavors to looks at these sources of data to answer the question what are the crucial elements of kinship care assessment in Alberta? This secondary data analysis endeavors to honour the voices of people who have already shared their perspectives. Secondary qualitative data analysis endeavors to gain further insight on existing data without further intrusion on populations who have shared the information previously, thus reducing a burden on research participants and avoiding duplication.


114

Irwin and Winterton advise, “the difficulties for secondary analysis will be more or less severe depending on whether there is a risk of systematic interpretation of data and whether there are checks that can made on our interpretations with reference to other forms of data” (2011, p. 10). A focus group of subject matter experts will provide one of these checks as well as a comparison to the current body of literature. What Will I Be Asked To Do?

You will be asked to participate in an in-depth audio-recorded focus group of approximately 2 hours. The focus group will be facilitated by the graduate student researcher. During the focus group the facilitator will share with you some themes that have arisen from the secondary data analysis of kinship care home assessment. The facilitator will ask for your comments, experiences and feelings regarding the themes presented and you will be asked to engage in a discussion concerning these with other members of the focus group. All focus groups will be digitally recorded. Participation is Voluntary Your participation is completely voluntary. It is your choice to take part in this study. You do not have to answer any questions that you don’t want to answer. You are free to discontinue at any time during the study by informing to the researcher, but your contributions to the point of withdrawal will remain a part of the data. If at any time you wish to withdraw from the focus group simply raise your hand and the discussion will end until you have left the room. What Type of Personal Information Will Be Collected?

Should you agree to participate, you will be asked to provide your area of employment and years of experience. Direct quotes may be used in reporting the findings and data-themes will be presented in aggregate form. All reasonable attempts will be made to protect confidentiality; audio recordings will be transcribed verbatim and all personal identifying information will be removed from the transcripts. Transcribed documents will be assigned a pseudonym. There are several options for you to consider if you decide to take part in this research. You can choose all, some or none of them. Please put a check mark on the corresponding line(s) that grants me your permission to I wish to choose my own pseudonym: ______________________________________ Yes: ___ No: ___

I wish to receive the final report (address provided on next page) Yes: ___No: ___ Are there Risks or Benefits if I Participate?

Possible Risks: We do not anticipate any harm accruing to you as a function of your participation in this research project. However, although we are committed to the principles of confidentiality and we will ask this from all participants we cannot guarantee that others in the focus group will not share information outside of the group.


115

Benefit: The findings of this study will benefit children in government care in increasing their access to placements with extended family or significant others. Research indicates better outcomes for children who are placed in kinship homes. Furthermore, kinship caregivers who are more appropriately assessed, trained, and supported will create more successful or stable placements for these children. You may personally benefit by developing a clearer understanding of what has been identified by other stakeholders as crucial elements to kinship care home assessment through discussion within the focus group. What Happens to the Information I Provide?

The information you provide will be used to inform best practice in the area of child intervention and caregiver assessment. The research may also be used for educational purposes, including public presentations and research publications. The research team will have access to the audio tapes before they are transcribed. All digital files will be stored in locked filing cabinets inside locked offices. All signed consent forms will be stored there as well. Any information stored in electronic format on computers or other electronic storage devices will be kept in password-protected files on computers that are also password-protected. No information that can be used to identify you will be included in electronic files. Audio- and video-tapes will be erased after 5 years or sooner. Computer files may be stored indefinitely but will remain password-protected and contain no information that can be used to identify you.

Signatures (written consent)

Your signature on this form indicates that you 1) understand to your satisfaction the information provided to you about your participation in this research project, and 2) agree to participate as a research subject. In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from this research project at any time. You should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout your participation.

Participant’s Name: (please print) _____________________________________________

Participant’s Signature __________________________________________Date: _______________

Participant’s email address (to receive the final report)

_____________________________________________________________________

Researcher’s Name: (please print) ________________________________________________

Researcher’s Signature: ________________________________________Date: _______________


116

Questions/Concerns

If you have any further questions or want clarification regarding this research and/or your participation, please contact:

Julie Mann-Johnson Graduate Student

Faculty of Social Work University of Calgary

780-460-8494 [email protected]

If you have any concerns about the way you have been treated as a participant, please contact the Research Ethics Analyst, Research Services, University of Calgary.

A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference. The investigator has kept a copy of the consent for

117 Crucial Elements to Kinship Care Home Assessment

Appendix B

Focus group Protocol This project will explore social work practice in the area of kinship care. The literature suggests that children placed in kinship care achieve more positive outcomes. Even so, practice and policy regarding kinship care has been slow to develop and in most jurisdictions foster care and adoption policies were applied to kinship care. However the literature suggests the experience for kinship caregivers is very different from stranger care – adoption and foster care. In this study, data was reviewed from previous public consultations and information gathering events have occurred in recent years within government in Alberta where information was gathered regarding kinship caregiver assessment. This data was analyzed and used to inform this project to honour the voices of people who have already shared their perspectives. Secondary qualitative data analysis endeavors to gain further insight on existing data without further intrusion on populations who have shared the information previously, thus reducing a burden on research participants and avoiding duplication. I would like to present what this data identified as being crucial to kinship caregiver assessment and I would invite you to share your thoughts regarding these findings. This process will serve to ensure checks on the secondary data analysis. Our conversation will be digitally recorded. However aside from my research supervisor, no one will have access to this recording or the transcripts of the recording. Our conversation today is completely confidential and I ask that the participants in the room respect these principles of confidentiality and refrain from sharing information from other participants. If for any reason you wish to end your participation in the focus group, you are always free to withdraw your consent and leave the room. However the information that you have shared until that point may be used.


Potential questions: Do these comments seem to reflect your practice experience? Would you like to add anything? Do you see things differently? Do you disagree with anything presented? Can you elaborate? Was anything else overlooked? Left out? Do you see certain elements as being most/least crucial? Can you elaborate?


Appendix C Kinship Home Assessments Jurisdictional Scan – Comparison Matrix Jurisdiction What home study tool is

used? Who completes them? What is their

training or support? Are there any other components to the assessment process?

Notes:

British Columbia

SAFE Usually done by a resource worker (staff), however which worker conducts home studies depends upon the structure of the 13 service delivery areas.

Trained in SAFE Two different types of caregivers: in government care, and out of government care. Out of government caregivers are assessed according to policy. Placement is possible on an emergency basis. It is likely that a protection worker would conduct a preliminary assessment before placing the child in the relatives' home. A more thorough assessment has to be completed within 60 days of the child being placed in the home.

Saskatchewan Developed their own. Resource worker (staff). Recently incorporated a requirement for annual agreements for services and annual review for all caregivers.

Use PRIDE for foster care and are reviewing PRIDE Tradition of Caring as a model for assessment.

PEI Same as regular assessment, except the family’s ability to maintain and manage healthy boundaries with the birth family and the ability to work with the director in an open, cooperative manner when the birth parents may not be in agreement with the case plan or direction, are assessed thoroughly.

Delegated, authorized social worker on the resource team (staff).

Regular FP assessment includes an intake in which nonnegotiable criteria must be met and motivation must be assessed. The assessment includes a genogram in which relationships, parenting, loss and grief, addiction, mental health history and historical background are assessed. An ecomap is completed in which social supports, connectedness to the community and energy input and output to and fro the family are assessed. A best-fit for the family and their current life cycle stage is then assessed and jointly committed to.


Nova Scotia An initial assessment

followed with full SAFE. Foster care social workers (staff) complete both. In some parts of the province, SAFE assessments are completed by social workers who are designated to complete SAFE assessments for both foster care and adoption.

SAFE training and supported and trained in the agencies by their social work supervisors in the application of the initial assessment.

PRIDE - A tradition of caring (training) is mandatory. Usual gamut of checks is required - home safety, child abuse register, criminal records/vulnerable sector search, medical, references, and financials.

New Brunswick

SAFE Children’s Residential Services Unit social workers (staff). All are certified to complete SAFE assessments.

Attending PRIDE is encouraged but not required. All individuals over the age of 19 living in the home must also have a Child Welfare Check completed and a Criminal record check. An Environment of Care Assessment is completed as well. Immediate response Conference, Family Group Conference and Permanency Planning Conferences - all with the focus on working with the family to develop a safety plan for their child.

These are interim Kinship services and policy as legislative changes are being worked on. If a child is in the Minister's care and living with a family member or kin (someone known to the child) they are viewed as a provisional home and we proceed with assessing the family following the SAFE Assessment model.

Newfoundland Kinship home assessment. Social worker (staff). Kinship care is not an in-care status. Children are placed through agreement or order to the Kinship caregiver’s care. If they do not approve after assessment, child may remain but no supports are provided and parents are advised that an investigation may occur.

Western Australia

Developed own tool based on regulated competencies.

Social worker (staff). Not specific to home assessment.

Certain parts of assessment are completed at initial placement and others are completed within five days. Approved by a panel.

New Zealand Form incorporates Signs of Safety.

May be done by outside contractor who becomes involved through facilitation of FGC.

Signs of Safety training.

FGC is component of all cases as per legislation.


Appendix D List of Initial Codes: Access to training (social workers) Analysis in assessment Bio family involvement Caregiver commitment Caregiver prep Caregiver Training Casework practice Child safety Child’s role Collaborative-caregiver Collaborative –social worker Colonization Community standards Connection to bio family Consistency Critical Thinking Cultural connection Culture Current Process Decision Making Emotion Environment Extended family and community Family preservation Family Group Conference Financial Supports Focus on History Free of trauma Home Assessment Tool Housing Inclusive Assessment Indigenous Knowledge Jurisdiction Kinship as a priority Kinship criteria

Parenting knowledge Love Matching Mentorship Narrative element Openness to bio family Parenting Physical safety Physical needs Policies Post Assessment practice Proceduralism Recruiting Recruitment Relationship with family Relationship building during assessment Reliability of assessment Reporting and documenting Resources Respite Rights of kinship caregivers Risk Management Role of community Services Special needs Stability Strengths- Based Succinct Supports for caregivers System’s principles Team Timely assessment User-friendly home assessment Values Worries


Appendix E

Assessor Characteristics Organizing

Theme

Basic Theme Examples of Comments from Secondary Data Examples of Comments from Focus

Group

Assessor Skill

Experience Assessments are difficult and require insight, skill and experience. Home studies are conducted by experienced, trained home study practitioners who are sensitive and respectful.

Communication Skills

How do we communicate to get the information required? This is the person not the tool. Communication skills Interviewing techniques

Writing skills

Relationship Building

Listen when doing an assessment may have tea and bannock.

Fundamental to any home study is building a relationship with the family through engagement. This will lead to better understanding of the family that results in a better assessment of the family. When trying to build a relationship with a family, it is important "how" questions are asked.

Engagement with the family is necessary in order to complete a thorough assessment

Creating a safe environment for the family

Training Well trained Training on home study tool/model/process Training and mentoring required to support the staff completing the home assessments

Assessor Perspective

Collaborative Collaborative: the best decisions and solutions are generated from a collaborative perspective

Critical Thinking

Using critical thinking to assess information The person conducting the home study needs to be inquisitive. Commonsense

Cultural Competency

Specifically, we need to teach First Nations protocols to home study practitioners.

Understanding and competency in culture so that you can


understand child's needs

Respectful of culture

No Eurocentric mind set

Reflexivity Will be unbiased/leave personal beliefs out of the process Awareness of self and biases Need to focus on people’s identities values of the front line workers likely are not the same as the Aboriginal families they work with.

My worry is that we depend on the home assessment writer’s perspective and background to interpret what it looks like

Respect We need to foster "speaking with kindness" - words we use have power. Homestudy practitioners who are sensitive and respectful

Strengths-based Move away from a "fear-based approach" to a "strength-based approach".

Practitioner Proximity

There is a difference when assessing families when the assessor resides in the community and knows the community members. For example, on reserve vs large urban. The difference is that in a small community you already know information about the family and the family's history before you begin the assessment.

Specific community/ cultural knowledge

Professional Supports

Supervision Supervisor has a role in reviewing the information Supervision ongoing- mentoring staff that are completing assessments. Tonto for everyone aka a sidekick…more eyes to be a more balanced approach. Grouping together and with good supervision

Support and Mentorship

Supporting and mentoring staff will lent to more consistent, quality home assessments

Experienced workers supporting them

Mentorship and learning by going out with another person

Incorporate Current Evidence into Practice

We need to empower our caseworkers in sharing best practices and learning from each other.

The process reflects leading practices, research and traditional ways of knowing in normative child and family development.


Important Areas to Address Organizing

Theme Basic Theme Examples of Comments from Secondary

Data Examples of Comments from Focus

Group

Caregiver Characteristics

Commitment and Motivation

Caregivers need to commit to the child.

Caregivers capacity/ability and commitment to care for children in the long term

Will confirm the caregivers' commitment to help the children remain connected (or return) to their families, communities and culture.

Will also confirm the family's commitment to re-unite the child and help the child remain connected with his/her family of origin, community and culture

The acceptance of the child and their needs and behaviors by caregivers

To me, motivation is very different than commitment….You may have a grandparent who is very committed…but they may be motivated more by a sense of obligation. They don’t want to do this. This is not how life was supposed to be….but you don’t want to risk not seeing this child again.

I don’t want to do this, but I have to do this.

A red flag for me is if it’s based in economics. Creates family conflict.

Once we tied in the kinship rates, all the people who identified kokum were saying I’m the one.

Adding ability to provide permanency. Circumstance changes all the time. Maybe that is motivation and commitment as well.

Family Makeup The whole family has to be assessed Government’s definition of a family is not suitable for Aboriginal families. Indigenous tradition of families living with families is frowned upon but Eastern religions and cultures do the same thing but it is considered ok

You need a plan B. We have 75 year olds caring for 5 year olds. What if something happens to them? They need to be aware that plan B caregivers may not be eligible for supports.

Under caregiver characteristics. Is the caregiver aware around the change in their role. They are no longer auntie. Their kokum but now they’re the parent. And the cousins who live there are now their siblings. Renegotiating roles. Maybe you can get your head around that, but what about everyone else in the home.

Grief and loss-especially for grandparents. So many losses, loss of relationship, loss of role as grandparents. Your role as a parent is so different than that as a grandparent.

Caregiver Skill: Parenting skills

Knowledge (including proof) of the parenting styles of the primary caregivers

The willingness of the caregivers to provide and/or get the supports to care for children who may have unique and special needs.

The parental skills to deal with the child’s needs

We know that kinship caregivers do not have as much skill at the table as foster parents, but do they have enough?

The interplay together – can they do that and how do we support that


Proof of the skills of the caregiver need to be demonstrated in the home

Caregiver Skill: Knowledge

Understanding special needs of child Knowledgeable about child development Expectations fit the abilities of the family

Environment Stability/peaceful environment

Respect of Culture

Need to understand the culture and know what it looks like The family's cultural competence Related to the flexibility of family in spiritually support- encourage beliefs, traditions, and values as part of the family lifestyle.

Soft skills: Values

Sensitivity

will reveal a clear picture of the values and beliefs of the caregivers The caregiver needs to have respect for the child and the differences/ behaviors they bring

Soft skills: Emotion

How do we screen for humanity and compassion Love can make up for a lack of skills. Skills cannot make up for a lack of love. provide loving home The ability or capacity (preparedness) of the family (foster/kinship adoptive parents and others who live in the household) to accept and love other children who come into the home

I think we need to be careful about the whole love thing. Just cause I think cultures express love and affection differently, It’s a subjective word.

Love is important, but I think it’s also based in our culture on what it looks like.

Love starts to mask things

Sure, love can get you through a lot, but it’s not going to fix a brain injury or trauma.

It’s part of the re-education. Love is going to have to carry you through a time when it can’t fix it, and that’s why love is important

Soft skills: Collaboration

"We don't own children-they are on loan to us" will determine the caregivers capacity/ability to secure the required supports for the child and work as team members

The placement's willingness and ability to work (directly or indirectly) with the child's family regarding matters that affect the child.

Focus/resources should be at services/supports

Is there willingness for us to be engaged with us and how open are they to supports coming in?

Some of these families have so much animosity towards each other that they don’t want to work with one another.


that prevent children from coming into care - However, if a child comes into care the focus needs to be at returning the child to their parents/family/community. Home study needs to assess a family's ability to support this principle.

One of the struggles we have with family caregivers who have experienced trauma, but time may have passed or they’re in a different place, but often it is similar to what the child has experienced.

What kind of legacy are they carrying and not projecting that onto the child in their home. Are they able to know what their history is, their legacy and how to interrupt it? Do they have any insight?

Child’s Needs Love We need to change how we support these kids – they need connection to some member of their family that loves them They need family love

Child requires "love" not just a placement

Love them for who they are

Children have the caregivers’ time and attention and feel loved, accepted, and emotionally safe

Stability and permanency

Experiences "normalcy" It needs to be a guide to gather information toward a specific goal such as adoption, private guardianship, foster care or return home.

We need to decrease the number of moves in care - let's make the match of the child to the caregiver a good one from the beginning.

Special Needs It must be recognized that the child has undergone trauma We need to ensure the child receives the support he/she needs including things like counseling. Children experience loss, sorrow and grief when removed from their families and placed in a new environment.

Cultural Connection

The gov’t has a responsibility to support extended family to care for their kin. Exten, teach them how to believe in the Creator.

identifying, supporting and implementing what is needed to support the child's connection to culture


Cultural planning and connectedness

Children need a healthy well rounded sense of self based in traditions, beliefs, values, spirituality and family lifestyle.

Relationship with Family and Community

We cannot look at a child in isolation but rather we need to look at a child in terms of attachment to their families and communities. We need to recognize and respect the child's relationships to parents and siblings

emotional/relationship needs met - placed near/in the community the child has knowledge of and connection to family and community

Analysis of the Information

Narrative A comprehensive story will be told about the family Tell a story about the family that includes information about the individual's history, extended family, community, willingness/ability to work to return the child home (facilitating visits with the family, etc.)

Critical Thinking Good documentation of the assessment piece - not just collecting information Analysis of the information Critical thinking is key

I wonder about different language other than narrative. The old format was very much narrative. The idea of SAFE was more of an assessment. We need to move away from storytelling and it’s great what families tell us in 30 pages, but we need assessment pieces. Crux of any home assessment is analyzing all your information. Taking everything we talked about today, bringing it together to somehow make a case for approving or not approving this family. Would be neat to have some more guidelines for how you do this. Honouring their story, presenting solution for the issues we are worried about, your plan of how you would support them. Analysis is the key to the whole home study.


Home Assessment Process Organizing



Group

Home Assessment Tool

Reliable Reliability

Consistent Consistent results Consistent ways to deliver a common home study tool. Succinct, responsive, consistent, but flexible. Home study needs to be flexible but consistent. For example, need to adapt to different languages but cover fundamental topics.

Strengths-based Most homes will face some issues and the instrument needs to uncover that but from a strengths-based approach. What is working for this family and what are the plans required to mitigate any areas that require work (issues and concerns). The focus of the home study process is on strengths rather than deficits.

Succinct The home study process should be succinct and responsive.

User-friendly Process

Efficient The home study process is timely, efficient and inclusive.

Inclusive Language can be a barrier-ensure connection with community-SAFE home assessment – not culturally sensitive – loose then their trust – very intrusive question. We need to ensure that any home study does not exclude potential First Nations, Metis and Inuit families. Accessibility regarding language and cultural protocols.

Timely and Supported

Takes too long for families to get approval and get paper work done, in the meantime children lose out. It took 5 years to get my home assessment done. Too often we take kids into care then try to figure out what to do. We have kids sitting for months, just waiting to approve the process.

Accessing a doctor to complete a medical is one of those things that create a barrier. So if you have a grandma caring for four kids, and she has to catch a bus downtown to get her fingers printed, this becomes a major issue

Some of these forms, they find it very difficult to fill out. They feel embarrassed. They won’t tell you that they cannot read


those forms. So what they do is that they lose the forms. Huge language barrier. They signed it but they don’t know what the content of that document meant. The process is very confusing. Even when it’s explained to them. It’s that support piece.

Relationship building

Relationship with the family is essential There needs to be a team approach. Not “tool”/checklist focused. It needs to focus on relationship.

Barriers Focus on History Change policy around home study policy-requirements to difficult-e.g., if a problem (criminal) occurred 10 years ago and was minor they can’t get a home study When kinship is looked at, things are changing that past record where children weren’t harmed, it’s no reason to deny the application (eg. a drunk driving offence) Once a family comes into the system their file is active for 99 years. Grandparents are trying to get their grandkids but based on history and documentation we can’t hear each other Concern with things ‘in the record’.

Culture Government’s definition of a family is not suitable for Aboriginal families. tools/processes (e.g. assessments) don’t work well with Aboriginal families – staff do not feel supported to “push the envelope” and work outside of the rules. Now Elders are being assessed

Ongoing Assessment

Caregiver Prep Setting expectations of caregivers prior to assessment then ensuring assessment looks at the family’s commitment to these expectations. Family preparedness

Recruitment Look first in the child's family for placement options

Placing them with the immediate caregiver that was named or identified and no further searching is going on. They focused on bio mom and just shook her tree…I think a lot of times we neglect the dads.


There’s more than one family tree to look at.

Matching ability to meet the needs of the child placed with them Expectations fit the abilities of the family

Focusing on can the caregivers meet the needs of the child? Sometimes their behavioural needs exceed their capacity

Post Assessment the initial assessment is followed by additional ongoing assessment - is not just one snap shot of the family - the assessment continues even after the child is placed important to make a plan of supports and then provide the supports Engage the families and ask them what they need

Collaborative Role of Community

First Nations, Metis and Inuit know their communities including caregivers. This knowledge needs to be respected. Community has a role - community is a source of information and support A key factor in the assessment of the skills of the caregiver is the community knowledge and input Some of the required knowledge includes whether the home is supported by the community- for that child.

Child’s role in Assessment

told the story of her brother, lost drinking, cw intervention – mother stepped in and she was denied by CW services..- long going process to try get children back.- children never asked where they wanted to be. Why aren’t kids involved in decision making about placements? We so infrequently ask the children what they want to have happen. Need a good process of engagement to allow children to make an informed decision. FGC [Family Group Conferencing] or Talking Circles

Involvement of Biological family

Engage the family including extended family and others such as the Band Designate, elders

Decision Making Does the community review the decision that workers make Get all family members together, then they as a

How to message when they aren’t approved. You know what we are going to let you be a grandma because you are a wonderful grandma and he needs that and


family make the decisions about what is best for the children Mutual decision making, not just "top down"

we are going to find someone else to parent them. Not just assuming that because they are with family, it will be all ok.

Family Group Conferencing

Family group conferencing has the capacity to explore the village. More successful integration of “Family Group Conference” right at front end. Family Group Conferencing is an approach that works because it’s relation-based. We brought 300 children back to our community. We use family group conferencing Family conference allows us to create a circle of those that are involved in the life of the family and make the best decision.

Not enough FGC going on either in the…region. No collaboration like that in my experience. They may not be able to be the caregiver, but they can play a role in the child’s life. Built in respite system [by identifying family]

Safety Organizing



Group

Child’s Safety Environmental Supports should also be provided to make caregiver's home structurally safe Provide a safe environment

Physical The ability of the caregivers to ensure the physical and emotional safety of the children

Emotional The home study process results in a safe, nurturing environment that meets the child's needs (spiritual, physical, emotional, cultural)

Free of Trauma Absence of activities that threaten safety such as abuse, neglect, family violence, drugs

Safe homes for children in need - free from addictions, violence, etc

I think it’s unrealistic to expect kin not to have contact…I think it’s inhumane actually When we think about kids who have experienced trauma in their home, kids continue loving their parent. How can you ask that of a grandma…so how do we support grandma. Putting them between a rock and a hard place.


How do you prevent that – but you can’t Safety planning. Even if trauma comes up, is there a willingness to protect from it. How do you assess whether that caregiver is able to protect from that trauma.

Standards “Standards” take away from us, why would we want our own room as an example given.

The government is not meeting our standards

Family/ culture still not being maintained – not all on the same page as far as standards go – eg come to my place no fridge, but do have other foods – other than vegetables/fruits – kids may be dirty – standards are different.

Lack of understanding of tradition (3 children sharing a bed is acceptable) carried over from before we lived in houses.

Rules about so many beds/rooms for kids not realistic on reserves big families and band-built houses.

Need 1 room per child is not realistic. I want the home assessments changed to meet the needs of the communities. Realistic standards, considering community norms

We have had a number of homes not approved because of poverty, and there are different homes that look differently that are still loving, caring and supportive homes.

Kids can be loved in homes of poverty and that’s a systemic problem and not an individual problem.

Policy and Legislated Requirements Organizing



Group

Proceduralism Why is our system making things so hard for these children to visit with their families? It hurts because our homes have become institutionalized because they are foster homes and the Gov’t tells us how to do things. Child welfare system is set up based on values – independence individual responsibility, do things quickly and according to the rules. Need to shift the values of the system. Challenges of children being taken away – CFSA makes it difficult – always a threat of removal – both with parents and kin placements by rules/policies, not followed

Often we are driven by fear – fear of what could happen. What’s going to happen if we don’t follow policy.


Ridged system – SAFE home assessment model Tools/processes (e.g. assessments) don’t work well with Aboriginal families – staff do not feel supported to “push the envelope” and work outside of the rules. We need to "break down" barriers; decrease the amount of "red tape" and work cooperatively and on equal footing.

Reporting and documenting requirements

Fuck paperwork

Risk Management Best place for child is with their family but they don’t want to take the risk-risk management is a struggle for case workers

Issue of risk: e.g. some kids may feel safe with grandparents but there may be issues in the family that would indicate that children shouldn’t be placed; alternative-place children with grandparents and have family members who will monitor the situation

Requirements to be a foster parent not compatible for Aboriginal families and communities – too risk averse.

Offers reassurance to the public that due diligence was exercised

Principle based practice

Child welfare system is set up based on values – independence individual responsibility, do things quickly and according to the rules. Need to shift the values of the system.

Make Kinship a Priority

Being in Foster Care is confusing, loss of self, identity, parents. “I didn’t know anything”, needed to connect with bio family, but parents weren’t there to show who they were

Why are we doing Foster recruitment when we’re seeing greater success with kinship?

More emphasis on kinship care-kids in foster care are being moved around way too much

kincare is better and encouraged. – process was long and frustrating.

empowering family members to take kids rather than sending them out of the community

Not here to bash foster parents but they have a lot of influence in filing admin reviews.

We have created an industry based on economics that thrives on children being removed from their home based on foster care….we have made it profitable to be a home that cares for children. We have more and more foster homes who are admin reviewing and you look at it and the situation is based on economics and not the best interests of the child. (referring to the loss foster care income)

It’s getting messy. I’m not sure that we are being supported to place with kin…but our legislation supports it.


I don’t know that the courts are willing to support us in that. We will get better at it as we go along, but we are in a catch up period.

Flexible kinship criteria

Kinship – more flexibility on who we approve as kinship families kinship has to go through same criteria as foster as foster home – too many barriers are being placed on family care

Have been told, grandma too old to care for grandchildren.

Want to see more kinship care, and that barriers are reduced for those wanted to take care of kin. Want courts to be more open to this.

Kinship care has a lot more potential. Need to look more into this and reduce barriers/policies that hinder kinship care.

Rights of kinship caregivers

As a kinship provider I should not need a lawyer. Has created a lot of mistrust right from the beginning of signing papers – lost my right as a human being – children became property of the government

Caregiver Policies

Clear guidelines regarding child management and discipline

Policy right now says that the bio parent cannot reside in the home. Dad got his act together….it’s working well. It’s one of the barriers. Family healing happens within the context of kinship care at a greater degree than we give it credit for. Love is a huge component in healing. Bring families together and see families heal. That’s my goal.


Systemic Organizing



Group

Resources There are a number of barriers facing First Nation, Metis and Inuit families and communities. For example, the lack of housing on-reserve. How can we place a child in a home in their community when there is no housing? What about food security? How can we place a child in a home where there are food security issues? These issues are inter-connected and cannot be addressed in isolation.

Financial resources

Capacity and resources required to carry out tasks

Housing Work with what all communities need instead of building 3 bedroom houses build 5 rooms for Kokum.

Inadequate housing, 2 or 3 families living together in 1 house

Colonization Government rules, policies, procedures do not fit our culture. Entrenched in the dominant society of doing things. We have been programmed to have a nuclear family.

Prior to residential schools, aboriginal communities took care of their children

government is starting to realize that the Aboriginal people have the answers

How can we support or enhance a healing system? We need to get back our rights to make our own decisions; social workers make you feel like they own you.

Respecting Indigenous Knowledge

Aboriginal knowledge has been de-valued and continues to be de-valued. We need to learn to respect their knowledge.

feels shame when the community member is good and the policy states otherwise- the elders are good and they earned their place in the community- hard for workers to say no.

Some of the info out there is not very good. Starting with a literature review with poor info. What is the point? The wisdom is in the community


Cultural sensitivity – for years gov’t has tried to figure out what’s important to us without once asking us. They don’t want to know the reality of what/who we are.

Jurisdiction Home study process should apply off reserve On reserve don’t have to do safe assessment (with feds) relationship with police criminal check immediate

Role of extended family and community

Our community always took care of us so we

didn’t go into care. Kids went into care when

they moved into the city, away from the

community.

We need to take care of our children as a

community.

Needs to be elder involvement – grandmas and

grandpas – they are useful people – no one is

looking for them

Grandparents are the glue

Aboriginal families don’t always have a mom

and dad that raise you. It’s aunties, uncles, and

grandparents that are integral to raising

children.

Kinship ties – traditional family connections

are critical for kids that can’t stay with their

parents.

We need to recognize that the best place for a

child is in the family and the community from

where they came from.

Consideration needs to be given to the child’s

larger family group/”clan”

Respecting Indigenous Casework Practice

First Nations practice standards inform the process and consider family and community norms

We elevate what is working and share First Nations best practices - this may include a provincial symposium of First Nations best practices

Family Preservation

If we pay group home 300 per day, why not pay this to keep kids in their own home.

Agreement around the table that children are


better off in a bad situation in their biological family than in our system

Collaborative Casework Practice

A Voice, to be a true part of the team Involve all departments/ supports community resources.

Kinship are brought to the table at service team meeting so they understand the expectation of their child or the parents of the kid….they want to be part of it.

None of my kinship parents have been invited to service team meetings. They don’t have copies of the plans.

Support for Caregivers

A lot of grandparents have a lot of pressures and can’t take in children without support

Grandparents will not turn away their grandchildren, but they don’t have the ability to keep up and care for the grandkids. They need more supports.

Very hard for grandmother to take children in this system, young men used to hunt for grandma to feed children

At the moment kinship care is set up for failure

Financial The gov’t has a responsibility to support extended family to care for their kin. Extended family should not be expected to raise their family members without adequate financial supports.

Compensate family members who want to care for their children.

Dollars/$ should follow the children; going to the grandmothers who are raising them.

Sometimes they (caseworkers) seem to think it’s their money they’re spending

You’re family, you pay for it. (seems to be the attitude)

The caseworker told the kinship provider “you’re financially responsible for this kid. We’ll give you some help, but you need kick in some money.”

Sometimes our policy has too much discretion….sometimes one (office) will support buying winter clothing and another a worker will say I feel like I need to beg for things.

Sometimes we breed dependency…..they stop being self-reliant and hey I can get mileage for this and I’m not going to do this if I don’t get mileage. And then they have a really tough time. Or they move into a bigger house to accommodate the placement and then the kids go home and they are left with a larger home without the maintenance dollars. Don’t breed dependence. Sometime kinship families put the brakes on permanency when they hear that they


won’t be getting rec allowance….

Services Let us pay for services to support extended family to care for kin Paying for extended family to get healthy enough to care for kin

Support for families to help navigate the systems

Need to connect those systems

Mentorship More mentoring, more connections with Mushums, develop stronger bonds How can we support these Kookums to mentor other extended family members to become responsible caregivers?

Mentorship from other experienced caregiver families

Access to training Information/support/training

Respite Respite options within extended family and/or community

Worries Money being mishandled by caregivers Family members need to speak out and not cover up abuse against children Lots of difficulties with kinship – child wanted to stay with aunty, cried for her – makes mom so mad – tensions with relationships – mom feels replaced so strikes but makes trouble – little boy is caught

Sometimes think we “romance” things – so many grandmas raising grandchildren – reality is food, clothing, shelter – is it always the best thing to leave Aboriginal kids with Aboriginal family? Aboriginal families are maxed out – can’t meet needs.

Sometimes their family is the worst thing for them because of the dysfunction

What are their loyalty issues? Who are they loyal to? Their loyalties need to shift to the child and that means no secrets. That’s a worry.

university of calgary - Alberta College of Social Workers

Documents

Transcript of university of calgary - Alberta College of Social Workers