WITHDRAWN: Developing Approaches to Practice in Indigenous Child Welfare Agencies in Canada

Background: This study explores the development of approach to practice in three Indigenous child welfare agencies in Canada serving multiple communities. Indigenous child welfare (CW) agencies have often been required to deliver services based on imposed practice models developed without community input. These practices were not generally tailored to the needs of Indigenous families and communities. Recent legislation across Canada has provided pathways to restore the rights and responsibilities for CW back to Indigenous communities. Practice approach development is an ongoing process that continually unfolds to meet the needs of the client within community. Thus, it is essential to understand how Indigenous CW agencies develop culturally-inclusive and community-driven approach to practice.

Methods: This study is part of a mixed-methods project that included multiday on-site visits. Overall, the team conducted 21 semi-structured interviews, 13 focus groups, and an online survey in partnership with three Indigenous CW agencies in British Columbia. In total, 70 participants completed an interview or focus group, including 32 agency workers, 10 team leaders, 2 practice managers, 3 executive directors, 8 agency board members, and 15 community Elders. Transcribed interviews and focus groups were coded using an iterative open-coding process to develop the analytic framework. The team then conducted thematic analyses and performed a comparative case study analysis.

Results: Qualitative analyses and agency document reviews confirmed that all three agencies had adopted or were in the process of adopting new practice models to guide workers’ direct actions. The adopted models of practice included highly-structured models, like Signs of Safety®, whereas others were guided by comprehensive community-developed frameworks. In both instances, the approach to practice extended beyond the integration of culture into service delivery; Instead, prioritizing culture as practice. Interestingly, all agencies’ approach to practice were grounded in culture with community input, but the process of engaging community differed. In one agency, the Executive Director connected directly with community. In another, the agency Board and community members led this process, and in another, Elders from the community with agency leadership were the driving force. Practice approaches emphasized family inclusion (e.g. family circles) and community engagement (e.g. Elder-involved decision-making) in the process of keeping children safe. Workers reported an increased focus on preventative services, emphasizing “doing things differently” and “thinking outside of the box.” These approaches were made more feasible with changes in government policies and funding structures. An overarching theme was that knowing the culture meant being able to describe the approach to practice.

Implications: This study advances the dialogue around the development of approach to practice in Indigenous CW agencies. Importantly, this process is fluid and dynamic, adapting and responding to shifting client and community needs, yet framed by a set of guiding culturally-inclusive standards. This study highlights the various pathways to practice approach development, and provides insights into the facilitators and barriers. Findings have implications for Indigenous CW agencies and communities in the process of identifying and developing approaches that fit community and client needs and contexts.