Christopher Walmsley, Protecting Aboriginal Children.

Hick, Steven F.

Christopher Walmsley, Protecting Aboriginal Children (Vancouver: UBC Press 2005)

THERE IS NO BETTER way to uncover the context and inner working of social work with Aboriginal children than through an analysis of how social workers them selves create meaning for their work. Christopher Walmsley goes straight to the heart of the matter with his well-written account of how social workers describe and explain their daily work with Aboriginal children. Although the book is entitled Protecting Aboriginal Children, the reader is left wondering whether or not child welfare with Aboriginal children does more harm than protection. The book is welcome as it is one of only a few that discusses this topic, which is surprising given that Aboriginal children are grossly overrepresented in the overall population of children taken from families and placed in substitute care.

The book is a popularized version of an academic thesis. By moving the theoretical and methodological discussions into appendices, the book frees the casual reader from theoretical deliberations and goes straight to the practical and useful information. The analysis is based on nineteen in-depth interviews conducted in 1998 and 1999 with BC child protection workers who work extensively with Aboriginal children. The interviews include both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal social workers and the distinctions displayed in the book are revealing.

The book weaves an intricate story that looks first at the national and provincial historical context, the sociopolitical context, and finally the organizational and community contexts. If one is looking for a comprehensive overview of the context of child protection with Aboriginal children, particularly in BC then this is a must read. The historical account is an accurate portrayal of how well-intentioned people can participate in a system of policies and systems that are unjust and oppressive. Perhaps if non-Aboriginal policy-makers and social workers began by honouring First Nation perspectives and truly listening, then a suitable system could be developed.

The story of Aboriginal child protection is one of many stories of unjust treatment of First Nations peoples in Canada. It is a story of colonization in which the government sought to assimilate the First Nations people to free up lands for settlers. In the field of child protection the operators say that they are truly interested in the best interests of Aboriginal children. So the question remains, how is it that a system comprised of well-intentioned people can operate to so severely victimize a particular group in society? Walmsley's account tells us much in this regard. His detailing of the organizational context in the BC Ministry of Children and Family Services [MCFS] compared with that of Aboriginal child protection organizations is very revealing. The MCFS environment emphasizes standardization, control of practice, high caseload, huge paperwork demands, and high staff turnover. The Aboriginal organizations emphasize community partnership, respect from management, open dialogue about practices, and smaller caseloads.

One might argue that the striking difference is due to bureaueratic size, but Walmsley's discussion of how social workers think and talk as a group about their work uncovers a more complex social reality. His research found that social workers, particularly non-Aboriginal social workers, express their practice as power-oriented practice or policy-oriented practice whereas Aboriginal practitioners in Aboriginal agencies articulate family-oriented practice or community-oriented practice. Power-oriented practice reflects an awareness of power difference between Aboriginal families and child protection authorities and attempts by workers to maximize this differential. The outcome is to reproduce relations of domination and subordination similar to that of residential schools or the sixties scoop. The policy-oriented representation of practice emphasizes following the dictates of child protection policy and, according to Walmsley, is probably the dominant form of practice in the province. This representation of practice attempts to reduce uncertainty and fear. It avoids "making waves" and reprisals from employers. The family-oriented and community-oriented representations see the strengths of families and communities in protecting children. They are based on trust and partnership.

The above distinctions in representations of practice are glaring, with significant implications for Aboriginal child protection policy and practice. In my opinion, Walmsley does not develop the analysis enough. He attributes the difference to MCFS's "large centralized bureaucracy" that "emanates a climate of fear and reprisal" compared to small local Aboriginal organizations that are "respectful and supportive." His solution therefore is a decentralized model of service delivery. I think that this is an oversimplication. In his concluding remarks on the historical context, Walmsley states that "whether social work practice is a function of colonial and class relationships circumscribed by the regulatory framework, or whether there is a measure of independent analysis, reflection and judgment on the part of the practitioner is unclear." (18) Here, Walmsley is struggling with the age-old question of the interplay between structures and the everyday practice of social work. It is refreshing that Walmsley did not jump to some functionalist argument. However, an ethnographic component to the original thesis might have enabled Walmsley to dig deeper and explicate how child protection practice is organized by and articulated to the organizational and legislative context and the larger social relations of society.

The book is not as strong in its description and explanation of practice using the social representation theoretical approach that is detailed in an appendix.

Steven F. Hick

Carleton University