INDIGENOUS KIN CARE
When I emigrated to New Zealand from Scotland in 2002, one of the many significant differences between the two statutory child welfare systems was in the use of kin care. Back then a literature review by Marie Connolly (2003) (who went on to become New Zealand’s Chief Social Worker and subsequently Professor of Social Work at the University of Melbourne), found that the rate in New Zealand at 35% was about the same as in the US, with Australia at 24% and the United Kingdom at 11%. Scotland would likely have been less than the UK’s 11% as supporting extended family members to care for children who could not remain with their parents was generally seen as an alternative to, rather than part of, the OOHC system. Children in kin care in the US were predominantly African-American, and in New Zealand and Australia were of course Maori and Aboriginal respectively.
Since then, the proportion of children in kin care placements has risen dramatically in most Anglo-American jurisdictions with it becoming the dominant form of OOHC in both Australia and New Zealand. The Australian Institute of Family Studies (2018) reported that 51% of children were now in kin care, while Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children in New Zealand has recently reported that 80% of Maori children, who make up the majority of children in OOHC, are now in kin (or other Maori) placements.
In part this change is because of a growing understanding and recognition of:
the cultural needs of indigenous children and the significance of their (wider) family and tribal relationships, history, and identity
the inter-generational trauma that governments of Anglo-American countries with indigenous populations have caused and
the rights of indigenous people’s as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) and domestic legislation (and in the case of New Zealand our founding document the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 between the Crown and Maori Chiefs).
Or in other words, this move to greater use of kin care for indigenous (and other) children has been both ideology-based (i.e. the right thing to do) and certainly for some children is potentially evidence-based too (i.e. the ‘effective’ thing to do). However, there are some less ‘noble’ reasons at play here too.
To some extent the move is also expediency-based as many jurisdictions struggle to recruit a sufficient pool of non-kin foster carers to meet their needs. As Colton & Williams (2006) said 15 years ago in relation to traditional foster care when the number of children in OOHC was generally much lower than it is today: “the pool of people with the motivation and the capability to foster has simply diminished”. In some jurisdictions it is also financially-based in that kin care, particularly on the basis of the very limited support that kin carers have in the past received, is generally much cheaper.
While it didn’t get much attention outside Canada, on January 1, 2020 An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families came into force. Supported by a protocol signed by the Canadian government’s Minister of Indigenous Services and the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, the legislation appears to recognise Indigenous peoples’ jurisdiction over child and family services as part of their inherent right to self-government and self-determination, and enshrines Canada’s commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
While it’s reception has been mixed (the eminent First Nations social work advocate Dr Cindy Backstock has described it as a Faustian bargain), it has been held out by the Canadian government as ground-breaking legislation that was co-developed with Indigenous groups.
In implementing the legislation and grappling with its ambiguities around jurisdictional disputes, funding, and the best interests of Indigenous children, Canada also has an opportunity to re-think what kin care looks like. With some promising developments in New Zealand and elsewhere, I would suggest that the rest of us need to as well.
Do you agree? And if so, who should be part of that or lead it?
I’d love to hear your thoughts! You can email me at: iain@betteroutcomes.co.nz
Kia kaha (Stay Strong).
Iain