Indigenous Peoples Thematic Series
Indigenous foster children living in private households: Rates and sociodemographic characteristics of foster children and their households

Highlights

• There was an increase in the overrepresentation of Indigenous children among foster children in private households from 2011 to 2021; 47.8% of all foster children in 2011, to 51.7% in 2016, and to 53.7% in 2021.
• Disparity in rates of Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster children increased from 2011 to 2021, with the largest increase seen among Inuit children.
• Among the provinces and territories, Manitoba had the highest rate of Indigenous foster children (per 1,000 Indigenous children) from 2011 to 2021 with a decrease in rates observed between 2016 (63.9 per 1,000) and 2021 (61.8 per 1,000).
• Disparity between rates of Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster children increased from 2011 to 2021 for most provinces and territories, with the highest disparity observed in the Western provinces and specifically Alberta.
• Disparity in rates was higher among Indigenous foster children living in large urban population centres compared to rural areas in 2021.
• Rates of foster children were higher among First Nations children living off reserve compared to on reserve and among Inuit children living outside Inuit Nunangat compared to inside Inuit Nunangat in 2021.
• In 2021, the foster child rate among First Nations and non-Indigenous children was highest for those aged 10 to 14. Among Métis, it was highest for children aged 0 to 4 and 5 to 9 while, among Inuit children, it was highest for those aged 5 to 9.
• Just over half of First Nations (50.6%) and Inuit children (51.6%) and three-fifths (63.4%) of Métis children in foster care lived with non-Indigenous foster parents in 2021; this proportion was higher in large urban population centres.

Introduction

Indigenous children are vastly overrepresented among foster children in Canada. In 2021, Indigenous children accounted for 7.7% of all children under age 15 in the general population, but 53.8% of children in foster care (Statistics Canada, 2022).^Note  The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (2021) has reported on how this overrepresentation within the child welfare system is a legacy of the residential school system and a perpetuation of a history of colonial policies and practices that have separated Indigenous children from their families and communities.

Any analysis of the current day overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system is incomplete without a more detailed discussion of the Sixties Scoop that came into effect with the phasing out of the residential school system. Between the 1960s and 1980s, many Indigenous children were taken or “scooped” from their families by provincial authorities and put into the child welfare system (Blackstock, 2011; Johnson, 1983). This resulted in the vast majority of Indigenous children being placed into non-Indigenous homes (Fallon et al., 2021; Sinclair, 2007), where they were separated from their culture and knowledge of their identity (Pooyak & Gomez, 2009; Sinclair, 2007). Many of these children documented experiences of abuse and neglect (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015a), while even those placed in homes with well-intentioned carers were met with “assimilationist expectations” especially around their Indigenous identity (White & Jacobs, 1992, p. 22).

The Sixties Scoop was propelled by many factors, including legislative changes that permitted provincial child welfare authorities to enact child welfare policies in Indigenous communities (Fallon et al., 2021). These changes and subsequent actions by way of child welfare authorities demonstrated a lack of sensitivity, “understanding and respect” for Indigenous culture and parenting practices, which combined with the longstanding structural inequalities and an underfunding of key services, paved the way for the Sixties Scoop (Fallon et al., 2021, p. 15). Despite the work of Indigenous communities to institute their own culturally appropriate child welfare services between the 1970s and 1980s, their reach was limited due to the overarching control of the government over child welfare legislation and funding (National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health, 2017b).

In the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015a) the historical and ongoing forced removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities, and thereby their culture and identity, is documented as a systemic cultural genocide with harmful intergenerational consequences. The on-going overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system has now been called the “Millennial Scoop” (Fallon et al., 2021) such that there are now more Indigenous children in the child welfare system than there were in the residential school system at its height (Fallon et al., 2021; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015a).

With the current overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system, instituting changes to this system was deemed the highest priority in the Calls to Action (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015b). Specifically, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) called upon governments in Canada to commit to reducing the number of Indigenous children in the child welfare system, to develop principles that affirm the right of Indigenous governments to establish and maintain their own child welfare agencies, and to ensure the production of more statistics that speak to differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in foster care to highlight and then address disparities. Recently, new legislation has affirmed the inherent, constitutional, and treaty rights of Indigenous groups to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services and to choose the best options for their own children and families (Government of Canada, 2019). This has led to the development and delivery of culturally appropriate and safe child and family services through Indigenous governing bodies (Government of Canada, 2019; Pollock et al., 2024).

With respect to information gaps, including those around disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in foster care, the lack of a comprehensive federal-level child welfare database makes it difficult to track the number of children in foster care and provide other relevant information, including details on when they were placed, duration in care and information on the households in which they were placed. This is, in part, an issue of jurisdictional diversity, as there are over 300 provincial and territorial child welfare agencies across 13 provinces and territories with over 100 agencies specifically delivering services to First Nations, Métis and urban Indigenous children (Sinha & Kozlowski, 2013). As different terms, inclusion criteria, reporting criteria, and data collection methods are used it is challenging to effectively compile and analyze data reported by child welfare agencies across regions (Trocmé, Roy, & Esposito, 2016). Such data would help to inform the optimization of child welfare services (Fallon, Filippelli, Black, Trocmé, & Esposito, 2017) so that foster children who face substantial early life challenges, including instability and lack of support, are provided the care needed to thrive, especially care that is culturally appropriate in the case of Indigenous children (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015b). The hardships experienced by foster children are associated with short- and long-term psychological, emotional, social and behavioural challenges (Brownell et al., 2010; Gaetz, O’Grady, Kidd, & Schwan, 2016; Homeless Hub, 2021; Hook & Courtney, 2011; Jee, Barth, Szilagyi, & Szilagyi, 2006) as well as other adverse outcomes such as lower educational attainment (Goyette, Blanchet, Esposito, & Delaye, 2021).

While data are limited at the national level, the Census of Population can offer some insight into the number of Indigenous children in foster care in Canada. For the first time in 2011, “foster child” was added as a response category in the household roster of the National Household Survey (NHS) questionnaire and the 2016 and 2021 Censuses followed suit (Turner, 2016; Wray & Sinha, 2015). This paper uses the 2011 NHS and 2016 and 2021 Censuses to provide foster child rates and disparity between rates of Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster children in private households across cycles. Subsequently, the 2021 Census is used to examine sociodemographic characteristics of children who have been identified as foster children and the characteristics of the private foster households in which they are living. In line with previous studies, this research is focused on children in foster care who were aged 14 years or younger.

Methods

Data Source

For this analysis, data from the 2021 and 2016 Censuses and 2011 National Household Survey were used. The Census remains the most comprehensive source of data for the Indigenous population in Canada and robust data are available for First Nations people living both on and off reserve, Métis and Inuit. The 2021 Census was particularly challenging to conduct due to the COVID-19 pandemic with associated travel restrictions, border closures, as well as natural disasters such as regional forest fires. Dwelling enumeration was either not permitted or could not be completed in 63 of the 1,026 Census Subdivisions (CSDs)^Note  that are classified as First Nations reserves.^Note  Response rates for the 2021 Census were also lower for Nunavut when compared with those at the national level.^Note 

Population and concept definitions

This section describes/defines concepts used in the analysis. These include concepts relating to Indigenous identity, sociodemographic characteristics, and household level measures.

Foster child

The 2011 NHS added the category of “foster child” to the response options for the question asking respondents to identify their relationship to persons who are regular residents within their home. The inclusion of this response option to the 2011 NHS and 2016 and 2021 Censuses enables a Canada-wide portrait of Indigenous children in foster care living in private households in comparison to non-Indigenous children.

On the census questionnaire, foster children are identified via a question about relationships between each member of the household and the designated household reference person (called “Person 1” as they are the first person listed on the household roster filled by the respondent). It is instructed that the household reference person should be “an adult, followed, if applicable, by that person’s spouse or common-law partner and by their children”. Foster children are therefore identified when a given household member’s relationship is selected as “Foster child of Person 1”. For this reason, it is not possible to identify foster relationships not involving Person 1, unless additional information is specified in a write-in comment.

The benefits of these data including their recency and coverage should be interpreted in the context of limitations. These data are for foster children in private households and do not account for information on children in other types of out-of-home care, such as specialized or residential care (group or treatment care) or children waiting for placement. Furthermore, the Census is based on self-identification/interpretation, thus, the counts of foster children will not be identical to those obtained from provincial/territorial administrative sources.

The response category of “foster child” may be interpreted differently by respondents as there was no definition of foster child provided on the questionnaire. For example, a child in “kinship care”^Note  which refers to the care of children by extended family or individuals emotionally connected to the child, may or may not be included as a “foster child.” Other research has noted that while the majority of Indigenous children live with their parents many also live in diverse arrangements, including larger families, with a relatively high percentage living with their grandparents, as foster children, and with other relatives in the form of kinship care (Hudon & O'Donnell, 2017; Turner, 2016). Furthermore, it is unclear how COVID-19 may have impacted the foster care placement process which might be reflected in analysis using the 2021 Census.

The analysis also relies on data from the NHS, a voluntary survey conducted in 2011, and two census cycles, with variations in collection methodologies, response rates, and the availability of data for certain variables. In addition, the census data provide a portrait at a specific point in time, so it is not possible to know about the history of Indigenous foster children including when they were placed in care, the duration, and from where they were removed (e.g., from an Indigenous community) or other information such as their mental and physical well-being. The data and analysis do not capture the historical context or the long-term impact of policies on Indigenous children. Understanding historical trends is crucial for a comprehensive perspective on foster care.

Lastly, while this study aims to provide data on the socio-demographic characteristics of Indigenous children in foster care and the household in which they are placed, it may not capture the complex interplay of social, economic, and cultural factors affecting Indigenous children in foster care.

Indigenous identity

Indigenous identity refers to whether the person reported being First Nations, Métis and/or Inuit in response to the Indigenous identity question on the long-form census questionnaire (question 24 in the 2021 Census and question 18 in the 2016 Census and 2011 NHS). In the case of foster children, responses were provided by proxy. Status and non-Status First Nations children are captured within the data. In 2021, over three-quarters of First Nations foster children were Status First Nations (76.1%) and one-quarter non-Status First Nations (23.9%).

Single responses to the Indigenous identity question are used when reporting data for the three Indigenous groups; however, multiple Indigenous identity responses and Indigenous responses not included elsewhere (n.i.e.)^Note  were included in the estimates for the total Indigenous child population.

Gender

Beginning in 2021, the census asked questions about both the sex at birth and gender^Note  of individuals while prior censuses asked about sex at birth exclusively (without the addition of the at birth specification). This paper uses gender which, as of the 2021 Census is the standard variable used in concepts and classifications.^Note 

The non-binary population is small, with data aggregation to a two-category gender variable done to protect the confidentiality of responses. Individuals in the category “non-binary persons” are distributed into the other two gender categories and are denoted by the “+” symbol.

Population Centre

A population centre has a population of at least 1,000 and a population density of 400 persons or more per square kilometre. Areas outside population centres are classified as rural areas. Population centres are classified into three groups: 1) small population centres, with a population between 1,000 and 29,999; 2) medium population centres, with a population between 30,000 and 99,999; 3) large urban population centres, with a population of 100,000 or more.

Housing suitability

Suitable housing^Note  has enough bedrooms for the size and composition of resident households according to National Occupancy Standard (NOS) requirements.

Housing adequacy

Adequate housing is indicated by the dwelling condition where the dwelling is reported by its residents as not requiring any major repairs.

Low Income Measure, after tax (LIM-AT)

The Low-Income Measure, after tax (LIM-AT)^Note  refers to a fixed percentage (50%) of median adjusted after‑tax income of private households. It is calculated by adjusting total household income by dividing it by the square root of the number of household members and comparing it against a threshold of 50% of the median ‘equivalent national household income’.

In 2021, for the first time, the LIM was made available in standard census tables for Census Subdivisions defined as being ‘on reserve’.^Note  The LIM-AT was used because the measure is defined for the territories and the population living on reserve which is not the case for the official poverty measure, namely the Market Basket Measure (MBM). That said, estimates associated with this measure are more affected than most by the incomplete enumeration of certain reserves and settlements in the Census of Population.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics are presented throughout this paper in the form of counts, percentages and rates or ratios of rates to show disparity in line with previous research (Wray & Sinha, 2015).

Foster child rates represent the number of children in foster care belonging to a particular Indigenous identity group, per every 1,000 children in the population total for that group. These foster children rates were calculated by the number of foster children within a specific identity group over the number of children within that identity group in the population as exemplified here for First Nations children:

$$\left(\frac{\text{Number of (First Nations) foster children}}{\text{Number of (First Nations) children in the population}}\right)\times \text{1,000}$$

Rate ratios are presented to highlight difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster child rates and are calculated by:

$$\frac{\text{Foster care rate for First Nations (Métis or Inuit) children}}{\text{Foster care rate for non-Indigenous children}}$$

This is a ratio of the Indigenous foster child rate to the non-Indigenous child foster rate, indicating the difference or disparity between the two populations. For example, a disparity value of 4 represents a rate of foster children within a specific Indigenous identity group as 4 times higher than the rate among non-Indigenous children.

To account for differences in incompletely enumerated reserves and settlements over time, only CSDs completely enumerated in all three cycles of interest (2011, 2016 and 2021) are included when conducting analyses. Due to this adjustment, counts and percentages may differ slightly from previously released statistics.

To ensure the confidentiality of responses collected for the 2011 NHS and 2016 and 2021 Censuses, while maintaining the quality of the results, counts are randomly rounded^Note  up or down such that they end in either 0 or 5 and this is done independently for each count.

Findings

There was an increase in the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the foster care from 2011 to 2021

In 2021, among 5,987,430 children under the age of 15 living in private households, 27,455 were identified as foster children. Indigenous children were significantly overrepresented among foster children compared to their overall representation within the population (Table 1). While there were increases in the total population share of Indigenous children under 15 years of age from 6.9% of all children in 2011, to 7.5% in 2016, and to 7.6% in 2021, the representation of Indigenous children in foster care increased even more from 47.8% of all foster children in 2011, to 51.7% in 2016, and to 53.7% in 2021.

In 2021, First Nations children accounted for 42.5% of foster children, while Métis and Inuit accounted for 7.2% and 2.8% of foster children, respectively.



The rate of children in foster care (per 1,000 children in the population) decreased for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous children between 2011 and 2021

Chart 1 provides the rates of foster children per 1,000 children aged 0 to 14. In 2021, the rate of Indigenous foster children was 32.4 per 1,000, a slight decrease from the rates of 33.5 reported in 2016, and 36.6 in 2011. In comparison, the rate of non-Indigenous foster children per 1,000 children was much smaller at 2.3 in 2021, a decrease from 2.6 in 2016 and 2.9 in 2011.

In 2021, First Nations children had the highest rate with 41.8 children in foster care per 1,000 First Nations children in the Canadian population. While foster child rates generally declined between 2011 and 2021 for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous children, this was not the case for Inuit children. The rate of Inuit children in foster care in 2021 was 33.5 for every 1,000 Inuit children, an increase from 25.1 in 2016. While the foster child rates for First Nations and Métis have declined from 2011 to 2021, the number of foster children within these groups have increased during this time period. However, this coincides with a larger increase in the total child population among these groups resulting in rates that show a decline between 2011 and 2021. In contrast, among Inuit the increase in the number foster children is proportionally larger than the increase in the total child population leading to an increase in the foster child rate from 2016 to 2021.

Data table for Chart 1



Data table for chart 1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 1. The information is grouped by Years (appearing as row headers), Children in foster care , First Nations children, Métis children, Inuit children, Total Indigenous children and Non-Indigenous children, calculated using rate per 1,000 children units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Years	Children in foster care
	First Nations children	Métis children	Inuit children	Total Indigenous childrenData table for chart 1 Note 1	Non-Indigenous children
	rate per 1,000 children
2011	46.0	17.2	28.3	36.6	2.9
2016	43.2	15.1	25.1	33.5	2.6
2021	41.8	14.4	33.5	32.4	2.3
Note 1 Total Indigenous children includes multiple Indigenous responses and Indigenous responses n.i.e. Return to note 1 referrer Note: Rates in this chart have been adjusted to account for differences in incompletely enumerated reserves and settlements over time. Sources: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2016 and 2021 and National Household Survey, 2011.

Disparity in Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster care rates increased from 2011 to 2021, with the largest increase seen among Inuit

Chart 2 presents disparities in foster child rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children using rate ratios.^Note  These disparity statistics represent the ratio of the total Indigenous, First Nations, Métis or Inuit foster child rate to the non-Indigenous foster child rate in Canada.

For example, the First Nations foster child rate was 15.6 times greater than the non-Indigenous foster child rate in 2011, but it was 18.2 times greater in 2021. The greatest increase in disparity between 2011 and 2021 was seen among Inuit children where the Inuit foster child rate was 9.6 and 9.9 times higher than the non-Indigenous foster child rate in 2011 and 2016, respectively, and 14.6 higher in 2021.

While the foster care rates generally decreased for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous children since 2011, the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster care rates increased over this time as a result of greater decreasing rates of non-Indigenous foster children.

Data table for Chart 2



Data table for chart 2
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 2. The information is grouped by Years (appearing as row headers), Children in foster care, First Nations children, Métis children, Inuit children and Total Indigenous children, calculated using rate ratios units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Years	Children in foster care
	First Nations children	Métis children	Inuit children	Total Indigenous childrenData table for chart 2 Note 1
	rate ratios
2011	15.6	5.8	9.6	12.4
2016	16.9	5.9	9.9	13.2
2021	18.2	6.2	14.6	14.1
Note 1 Total Indigenous children includes multiple Indigenous responses and Indigenous responses n.i.e. Return to note 1 referrer Note: Disparity statistics in this chart have been adjusted to account for differences in incompletely enumerated reserves and settlements over time. Sources: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2016 and 2021 and National Household Survey, 2011.

Rates of Indigenous foster children were highest from 2011 to 2021 in Manitoba with a slight decline in rates from 2016 to 2021

The rates of Indigenous foster children varied across years with declining rates from 2011 to 2021 observed among select provinces and territories including Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Yukon (Table 2). Yukon had the steepest decline from 44.4 per 1,000 children in 2016 to 27.0 per 1,000 children in 2021. Between 2016 and 2021, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and Nunavut saw increased foster child rates among Indigenous children. Manitoba had the highest rate of Indigenous foster children across the three temporal periods with a decrease in rates observed between 2016 (63.8 per 1,000) and 2021 (61.8 per 1,000).

The ratio of the Indigenous foster child rate to the non-Indigenous rate (i.e., disparity) also varied by province and territory (Table 3). Across the three temporal periods from 2011 to 2021, the disparity increased with the rate of Indigenous children in foster care being 12.4 times higher in 2011, 13.2 times higher in 2016 and 14.1 times higher in 2021.

 

Disparity in foster child rates between First Nations and Métis children and non-Indigenous children was highest in the Western provinces in 2021

In 2021, the rates of First Nations and Métis children in foster care were highest in Manitoba where 1 in 13 First Nations children, and 1 in 30 Métis children were in foster care (Table 4). The disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster child rates differed significantly across provinces (Table 5). For example, the disparity between the foster child rates of First Nations and non-Indigenous children was lowest in Nova Scotia (3.5 times higher for Indigenous children), while the disparity was highest in Alberta where the foster child rate of First Nations children was 43.4 times higher than the rate of non-Indigenous children.

The disparity between First Nations and non-Indigenous foster child rates was particularly high in the Western provinces (Table 5). Similarly, disparity between Métis and non-Indigenous foster child rates was highest in Western provinces, namely Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. While the foster child rate was higher among Indigenous children in Manitoba (61.8 per 1,000), the disparity was 28.9 times higher in Alberta (higher than in Manitoba at 26.3), which is the result of Alberta having the second highest rate of Indigenous children in foster care combined with the lowest non-Indigenous foster child rates in Canada. In addition, the disparity between Inuit and non-Indigenous foster child rates was highest in Manitoba (the rate among Inuit children being 65.5 times higher than that among their non-Indigenous counterparts). However, this is based on a smaller number (30) of Inuit foster children in Manitoba; thus, caution should be exercised in interpreting this finding.

The disparity in rates was higher among Indigenous foster children living in large urban population centres compared to rural areas

When examining the population centre size, the foster child rates were generally higher for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit children living in large urban population centres (population of 100,000 or more), while among non-Indigenous children the foster child rate was higher among those living in rural areas (population of less than 1,000) (Table 4). Specifically, the rate of First Nations foster children was 44.4 per 1,000 children in larger urban areas, whereas it was 40.7 per 1,000 children living in rural areas. The same pattern emerged for Métis where the rate of Métis foster children was 16.6 per 1,000 children in large urban population centres and 15.2 per 1,000 children living in rural areas. The rate of Inuit foster children was highest at 80.1 per 1,000 children in larger urban areas compared with 27.1 per 1,000 children in in rural areas. The opposite was the case for non-Indigenous children, with a rate of 1.5 per 1,000 children in large urban population centres compared with 4.7 per 1,000 children in rural areas.

When exploring disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster child rates by population centre size, similar trends emerged across Indigenous groups (Table 5). The disparity in rates in 2021 was higher in large urban population centres compared to rural areas and was more pronounced for Inuit and First Nations children. The Inuit foster child rate in large urban population centres was 54.5 times higher than the corresponding non-Indigenous foster child rate; whereas it was 5.8 times higher in rural areas compared with the non-Indigenous rate. Similarly, among First Nations children, the foster child rate in large urban population centres was 30.2 times higher than the corresponding non-Indigenous rate whereas, it was 8.7 times higher in rural areas.

Rates of foster children were higher among First Nations children living off reserve and among Inuit children living outside Inuit Nunangat

The foster child rate among First Nations children living off reserve (49.9 per 1,000) was double the rate seen among those living on reserve (24.6 per 1,000) (Table 4). The disparity between the foster child rates for First Nations children living off reserve and non-Indigenous children was also notable, where the rate among the former was 21.7 times higher (Table 5). Rates of Inuit and Métis foster children living on reserve should be interpreted with caution as they are based on low counts that suggest a higher percentage living in foster homes located on reserve rather than off reserve than is actually the case.

Among Inuit, the foster child rate for children living outside Inuit Nunangat (79.1 per 1,000) was 4.2 times higher than that among those living inside Inuit Nunangat (18.8 per 1,000) (Table 4). While disparity in Inuit and non-Indigenous foster child rates cannot be calculated for inside Inuit Nunangat where there were no non-Indigenous foster children, Table 4 shows that the Inuit foster child rate was 34.4 times greater than non-Indigenous foster child rate outside Inuit Nunangat.

Foster child rates were highest among First Nations children aged 10 to 14, Inuit children aged 5 to 9, and Métis children aged 0 to 4 and 5 to 9

Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster child rates varied across age groups in 2021 (Table 4). The First Nations foster child rate was highest for those aged 10 to 14 (45.6 per 1,000) and similarly higher among non-Indigenous foster children in this age group (2.6 per 1,000) relative to the other age groups. In contrast, the foster child rate for Métis was highest among those aged 0 to 4 (15.6 per 1,000) and 5 to 9 (15.6 per 1,000) and for Inuit among those aged 5 to 9 (39.2 per 1,000). As seen in Table 4, the rates of foster children by gender were similar across groups aside for Inuit children where there were more girls (35.6 per 1,000) than boys in foster care (32.0 per 1,000).

The disparity in foster child rates between First Nations and Métis children compared to non-Indigenous children was similar across genders whereas the disparity in foster child rates between Inuit and non-Indigenous children was higher among girls (15.6) than among boys (13.8) (Table 5).

Across all Indigenous identity groups, the disparity in foster child rates when compared with non-Indigenous children was greater among Indigenous children aged 5 to 9, compared to children aged 0 to 4 and 10 to 14. For example, the foster child rate for Inuit children aged 5 to 9 was 19.6 times higher than the foster child rate for non-Indigenous children within the same age group, whereas the rates for Inuit children aged 0 to 4 and 10 to 14 were 14.8 and 10.6 times higher than the non-Indigenous foster child rate, respectively.

 

Inuit children in foster care in 2021 were eight times more likely than non-Indigenous children in foster care to live in dwellings with bedroom shortfalls of three or more

Disparity in housing suitability between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children not in foster care, as documented in other research (Greenwood & de Leeuw, 2012; National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health, 2017a), as reported here, persists among children in foster care. While 87.2% of non-Indigenous children in foster care lived in suitable dwellings, proportionally far fewer Inuit (69.9%), First Nations (73.8%), and Métis (79.3%) children in foster care lived in suitable housing in 2021 (Table 6). Compared with their non-Indigenous counterparts, First Nations (4.0%) and Métis (4.0%) foster children were three times more likely to live in dwellings with bedroom shortfalls of three or more, while Inuit foster children were eight times (9.8%) more likely to do so. The higher percentages of unsuitable (crowded) housing among Indigenous children may reflect the housing disparities experienced by Indigenous people and specifically First Nations people living on reserve and Inuit in Inuit Nunangat (Assembly of First Nations, 2018; Inuit Tapiriit Kantami, 2016; Perreault, Dufresne, Potvin, & Riva, 2022). Indeed, First Nations foster children living on reserve compared to off reserve and Inuit foster children living in Inuit Nunangat compared to outside Inuit Nunangat were more likely to live in dwellings with bedroom shortfalls and in need of major repairs (data not shown).

First Nations, Métis and Inuit children in foster care were roughly two times more likely to live in dwellings in need of major repairs in 2021 compared with non-Indigenous children in foster care

When examining dwelling adequacy, a higher percentage of First Nations (16.1%), Métis (11.4%) and Inuit (15.0%) children in foster care lived in inadequate dwellings (i.e., in need of major repairs) compared with non-Indigenous children (6.7%). Generally, Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in foster care were more likely to live in dwellings in need of regular maintenance or minor repairs than in dwellings in need of major repairs in 2021 (Table 6).



Roughly two-fifths of Indigenous children in foster care lived in low-income households in 2021

To explore the socioeconomic conditions of the households in which foster children live, the after-tax low-income measure (LIM-AT) was used to assess whether the household income is below the low-income line. As seen in Chart 3, First Nation (40.0%), Métis (36.1%) and Inuit (36.0%) children in foster care were more likely to reside in households with income below the low-income cut-off compared with non-Indigenous children in foster care (33.7%). A similar pattern was seen in 2011 and 2016 among Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster children (data not shown). This finding should be interpreted in the context of limitations around the LIM-AT measure in that the LIM is based on national median income and not the median income for the province or territory. Median incomes and rent and food costs vary considerably from one province to another and even between cities and regions with costs particularly high in the North.

Data table for Chart 3



Data table for chart 3
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 3. The information is grouped by Children in foster care (appearing as row headers), Prevalence of low-income after tax, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Children in foster care	Prevalence of low income (LIM-AT)
	percent
First Nations children	40.0
Métis children	36.1
Inuit children	36.0
Total Indigenous childrenData table for chart 3 Note 1	39.1
Non-Indigenous children	33.7
Note 1 Total Indigenous children includes multiple Indigenous responses and Indigenous responses n.i.e. Return to note 1 referrer Notes: Prevalence of after-tax low income includes households on-reserve and in the Territories (refer to methods section for more information). Estimates associated with this variable are more affected than most by the incomplete enumeration of certain reserves and settlements in the Census of Population. The reference period for low-income data is the calendar year 2020. Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021

Just over half of First Nations and Inuit children and three-fifths of Métis children in foster care lived with non-Indigenous foster parent(s)

Knowledge of and connection to one’s cultural identity and historical background is critical to the well-being of Indigenous children (Greenwood & de Leeuw, 2012) and specifically those in foster care who benefit from a deep understanding of their culture and connections to their communities (McMahon, Reck, & Walker, 2007; Quinn, 2019, 2022). The importance of children living in culturally appropriate environments where they can gain cultural knowledge, develop a strong sense of belonging and cultural identity is well documented (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015a; United Nations, 2007). In cases where a child must be removed from their home, a placement home should be “rooted in the traditions and values of the child’s Aboriginal community“ (Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, 2023), which might be best facilitated through a foster parent that shares the foster child’s cultural identity.

Among the 11,735 First Nations children in foster care in 2021, 40.7% were living with at least one First Nations foster parent, 8.6% were living with at least one Indigenous foster parent who was of a different Indigenous identity while over half (50.6%) were living with non-Indigenous foster parents (Table 7). Similar distributions were seen among Inuit children in foster care. Of the 765 Inuit foster children, 35.9% were living with at least one Inuit foster parent, 12.4% with at least one Indigenous foster parent of a different Indigenous identity, and over half (51.6%) were living with foster parents who were non-Indigenous. A smaller proportion (27.5%) of the 1,980 Métis children in foster care were living with at least one Métis foster parent, and more than three-fifths (63.4%) were living with non-Indigenous foster parents.



A higher percentage of Indigenous children with at least one Indigenous foster parent lived outside of large urban population centres, in select Atlantic provinces and Nunavut

The percentage of Indigenous children living with at least one Indigenous foster parent, with or without the same Indigenous identity, varied across provinces and territories (Chart 4). Prince Edward Island (100%), Nova Scotia (94.1%) and Nunavut (78.3%) had the highest percentages of Indigenous foster children in the care of at least one Indigenous foster parent. Alberta (29.2%), Yukon (36.4%), and British Columbia (39.1%) had the lowest percentages of Indigenous children in the care of at least one Indigenous foster parent. Indigenous children in foster care were more likely to live with at least one Indigenous foster parent outside of large urban population centres. Over half of First Nations (57.8%), Métis (52.1%) and Inuit (53.1%) children in the care of at least one Indigenous foster parent lived in rural areas. Fewer First Nations (36.4%), Métis (18.6%) and Inuit (14.3%) children in the care of at least one Indigenous parent lived in large urban population centres (data not shown).

Data table for Chart 4



Data table for chart 4
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 4 Indigenous children living with at least one Indigenous foster parent, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	Indigenous children living with at least one Indigenous foster parent
	percent
Canada	47.1
Newfoundland and Labrador	58.1
Prince Edward Island	100.0
Nova Scotia	94.1
New Brunswick	63.0
Quebec	61.8
Ontario	45.0
Manitoba	49.7
Saskatchewan	64.7
Alberta	29.2
British Columbia	39.1
Northwest Territories	47.6
Yukon	36.4
Nunavut	78.3
Notes: Indigenous foster parent denotes one or more foster parent(s) that had the same or a different Indigenous identity from that of the Indigenous foster child. This includes cases where the foster parent(s) had multiple identities regardless of whether these multiple identities include the same identity as that of the foster child. For example, if a foster child is First Nations, and their foster parent identifies as First Nations and Métis (multiple identities), then they are included in the "Indigenous foster parent" category. Multiple Indigenous responses and Indigenous responses n.i.e. are included in counts for Indigenous children. Due to random rounding of counts in this chart, the sum of all percentages calculated using those counts may not equal 100%. Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021

Summary and Conclusion

The overrepresentation of Indigenous children in foster care increased between 2011 and 2021. In particular, the total proportion of Indigenous children in care was nearly six percentage points higher in 2021 (53.7%) than in 2011 (47.8%). Disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster child rates also increased during this period because of a decrease in the number of non-Indigenous foster children and an increase in the number of Indigenous foster children.

The increase in disparity from 2011 to 2021 was seen across all three Indigenous groups with the largest among Inuit. Foster child rates among Inuit children trended upwards between 2011 and 2021 as did disparity with their non-Indigenous counterparts. First Nations foster child rates were highest across all three time periods although a declining trend was seen from 2011 to 2021. However, the ratio of foster child rates between First Nations and non-Indigenous children, saw an upward trend between 2011 and 2021 with disparity in rates between First Nations and non-Indigenous children in foster care was 15.6 times greater in 2011 and 18.2 times greater in 2021. A similar pattern in disparity rates between Métis and non-Indigenous foster children was observed with a more moderate incline across cycles (i.e., disparity in rates were 5.8 times greater in 2011 and 6.2 times greater in 2021).

While the foster child rate was higher among Indigenous children in Manitoba (per 1,000 children), the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster child rates was highest in Alberta due to lower rates of non-Indigenous children in foster care relative to Indigenous children. Generally, disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children was highest in the Western provinces. Among First Nations, Métis and Inuit children, foster child rates were higher in large urban areas and higher among First Nations children living off reserve and Inuit children living outside Inuit Nunangat in 2021.

In 2021, foster child rates were highest among Métis children aged 0 to 4 and 5 to 9 and among Inuit children aged 5 to 9. Foster child rates among First Nations children were highest among the oldest age group, those aged 10 to 14.

Most Indigenous and non-Indigenous foster children in 2021 were living in dwellings that were suitable and adequate; however, a higher percentage of non-Indigenous children in foster care lived in adequate and suitable housing compared with their Indigenous counterparts. The housing conditions of children are key to their developmental growth, health and well-being (Greenwood & de Leeuw, 2012) with disparities highlighting the need to ensure safe and healthy living environments (Blackstock, 2007; De Leeuw & Greenwood, 2017).

In 2021, higher percentages of Indigenous foster children (39.1%) compared to non-Indigenous foster children (33.7%) were living in households with income below the low-income cut-off. Previous research has found slightly higher rates of poverty among children living in foster homes compared with children living with their parents (Pac, Waldfogel, & Wimer, 2017). The study revealed that when excluding foster care and severance payments, the odds of being in poverty was significantly higher among children who lived in foster care than those who lived with their parents, highlighting the importance of foster care payments provided to families with foster children. Future research is needed to determine what factors underlie the low-income prevalence among private households found in this study and the possible implications thereof on the well-being of foster children. It is important to note that public health measures, during the COVID-19 pandemic, may have resulted in unemployment and reduced or eliminated material resources that may have impacted household income during this time period (Hanlon et al., 2022; Whitt-Woosley, Sprang, & Eslinger, 2022).

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) and the United Nations (2007) highlight the importance of traditional cultural values on child development. Placing Indigenous children with families who identify culturally with them can be one way to foster cultural identity and connection (Quinn, 2019; Simard, 2009). Findings show that over half of First Nations and Inuit children and three-fifths of Métis children lived with a non-Indigenous foster parents in 2021. In contrast to findings from a study using the 2011 NHS (Turner, 2016), the percentage of First Nations and Métis foster children who were living with at least one Indigenous foster parent in 2021 increased by 2 and 12 percentage points, respectively, while among Inuit where there was a 4 percentage point decrease in the percentage of children in the care of at least one Indigenous foster parent. More research is needed to explain what factors may underlie this decrease.

Reducing the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system is a critical reconciliation commitment as per the Calls to Action set forth by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) as is the need for consistent and standardized data collection across jurisdictions. Researchers have noted the importance of evidence-based practice which requires reliable and valid data to better understand child welfare services and their impact (Fallon et al., 2017). While not without limitations, these data offer insights on persistent overrepresentation of Indigenous children in foster care.^Note  The Government of Canada (2019) and child welfare systems (see Schmid & Morgenshtern, 2022) have made formalized steps through recent legislation and policy to affirm Indigenous self-determination over child and family services. Indigenous groups are best placed to ensure the well-being of Indigenous children through adherence to principles such as cultural safety.^Note  Advocates note that more work is needed in the application of cultural safety practices and models to better serve Indigenous children (De Leeuw & Greenwood, 2017; National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health, 2017b).

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). We extend our gratitude to colleagues, both internal and external to Statistics Canada, who lent their expertise in reviewing this paper. A very special thanks to the Assembly of First Nations and Congress of Aboriginal Peoples whose insights and perspectives have enriched this paper.

Statistics Canada recognizes the historical and ongoing processes of colonialism and the need for systemic changes to address the harmful impacts that have created and continue to create disparities and inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. We remain strongly committed to working collaboratively to shed light on the negative impacts of colonialism and to advance reconciliation in Canada.

References

Assembly of First Nations. (2018). 10 year First Nations national housing and related infrastructure strategy. Retrieved from Ottawa, Ontario: https://www.afn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Draft-First-Nations-Housing-and-Related-Infrastructure-Strategy-July-2018-1.pdf.

Blackstock, C. (2007). Residential schools: Did they really close or just morph into child welfare? Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1), 71-78.

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. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.002.

Brownell, M., Roos, N., MacWilliam, L., Leclair, L., Ekuma, O., & Fransoo, R. (2010). Academic and social outcomes for high-risk youths in Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Education, 33(4), 804-836.

Curtis, E., Jones, R., Tipene-Leach, D., Walker, C., Loring, B., Paine, S. J., & Reid, P. (2019). Why cultural safety rather than cultural competency is required to achieve health equity: A literature review and recommended definition. International Journal for Equity in Health, 18(174). doi:10.1186/s12939-019-1082-3.

De Leeuw, S., & Greenwood, M. (2017). Turning a new page: cultural safety, critical creative literary interventions, truth and reconciliation, and the crisis of child welfare. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 13(3), 142-151. doi:10.1177/1177180117714155.

Fallon, B., Filippelli, J., Black, T., Trocmé, N., & Esposito, T. (2017). How can data drive policy and practice in child welfare? Making the link in Canada. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(10). doi:10.3390/ijerph14101223.

Fallon, B., Lefebvre, R., Trocmé, N., Richard, K., Hélie, S., Montgomery, M., . . . Soop, S. (2021). Denouncing the continued overrepresentation of First Nations children in Canadian child welfare: Findings from the First Nations/Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and eglect-2019. Retrieved from Ottawa, Ontario: https://cwrp.ca/publications/denouncing-continued-overrepresentation-first-nations-children-canadian-child-welfare.

Gaetz, S., O’Grady, B., Kidd, S., & Schwan, K. (2016). Without a home: The National Youth Homeless Survey. Retrieved from Toronto, Ontario: https://homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/WithoutAHome-final.pdf.

Government of Canada. (2019). An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. Retrieved from Ottawa, Ontario: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.73/index.html.

Goyette, M., Blanchet, A., Esposito, T., & Delaye, A. (2021). The role of placement instability on employment and educational outcomes among adolescents leaving care. Children and Youth Services Review, 131. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106264.

Greenwood, M., & de Leeuw, S. (2012). Social determinants of health and the future well-being of Aboriginal children in Canada. Paediatrics & Child Health, 17(7), 381-384. doi:10.1093/pch/17.7.381.

Hanlon, R., Kim, J., Woo, C., Day, A., Vanderwill, L., & Dallimore, E. (2022). An exploratory study of the impact of COVID‐19 on foster parenting. Child & Family Social Work, 27(3), 371-380. doi:10.1111/cfs.12863.

Homeless Hub. (2021). Foster Care. Retrieved from Toronto, Ontario: https://www.homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/legal-justice-issues/foster-care#:~:text=Without%20stability%20and%20effective%20support,are%20not%20in%20foster%20care.

Hook, J. L., & Courtney, M. E. (2011). Employment outcomes of former foster youth as young adults: The importance of human, personal, and social capital. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(10), 1855-1865. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.05.004.

Hudon, T., & O'Donnell, V. (2017). Diverse family characteristics of Aboriginal children aged 0 to 4. Retrieved from Ottawa, Ontario: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016020/98-200-x2016020-eng.cfm.

Inuit Tapiriit Kantami. (2016). Barriers to sustainable housing delivery in Inuit Nunangat. Retrieved from Ottawa, Ontario: www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Barriers-to-Sustainable-Housing-Delivery.pdf.

Jee, S. H., Barth, R. P., Szilagyi, M., & Szilagyi, P. G. (2006). Factors associated with chronic conditions among children in foster care. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 17 (2), 328-341. doi:10.1353/hpu.2006.0062.

Johnson, P. (1983). Native children and the child welfare system. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Council on Social Development in association with James Lorimer & Co.

McMahon, A., Reck, L., & Walker, M. (2007). Defining well-being for Indigenous children in care. Children Australia, 32(2), 15-20. doi:10.1017/S1035077200011536.

National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health. (2017a). Housing as social determinant of First Nations, Inuit and Metis health. Retrieved from Prince George, British Columbia: https://www.ccnsa-nccah.ca/docs/determinants/FS-Housing-SDOH2017-EN.pdf.

National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health. (2017b). Indigenous children and the child welfare system in Canada. Retrieved from Prince George, British Columbia: https://www.nccih.ca/docs/health/FS-ChildWelfareCanada-EN.pdf.

Native Child and Family Services of Toronto. (2023). Foster/Alternative Care. Retrieved from Toronto, Ontario: https://nativechild.org/child-welfare/foster-alternative-care/.

Pac, J., Waldfogel, J., & Wimer, C. (2017). Poverty among foster children: Estimates using the supplemental poverty measure. Social Service Review, 91(1), 8-40. doi:10.1086/691148.

Perreault, K., Dufresne, P., Potvin, L., & Riva, M. (2022). Housing as a determinant of Inuit mental health: associations between improved housing measures and decline in psychological distress after rehousing in Nunavut and Nunavik. Population Health Intervention Research, 114(2), 241-253. doi:10.17269/s41997-022-00701-0.

Pollock, N. J., Ouédraogo, A. M., Trocmé, N., Hovdestad, W., Miskie, A., Crompton, L., . . . Tonmyr, L. (2024). Original quantitative research – Rates of out-of-home care among children in Canada: An analysis of national administrative child welfare data. Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada: Research, Policy and Practice (the HPCDP Journal), 44(2). doi:10.24095/hpcdp.44.4.02.

Pooyak, S., & Gomez, Y. (2009). Using a narrative approach to understanding the frontline practices and experiences of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal child protection workers. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 4(2), 10-17. doi:10.7202/1069326ar.

Quinn, A. (2019). Nurturing identity among Indigenous Youth in care. Child & Youth Services, 41(1), 1-22. doi:10.1080/0145935X.2019.1656063.

Quinn, A. (2022). Experiences and well-being among Indigenous former youth in care within Canada. Child Abuse & Neglect, 123. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105395.

Schmid, J., & Morgenshtern, M. (2022). In history's shadow: Child welfare discourses regarding Indigenous communities in the Canadian Social Work Journal. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 13(1), 145-168. doi:10.18357/ijcyfs131202220662.

Simard, E. (2009). Culturally restorative child welfare practice – A special emphasis on cultural attachment theory. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 4(2), 44-61.

Sinclair, R. (2007). Identity lost and found: Lessons from the Sixties Scoop. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 3(1), 65-82. doi: 10.7202/1069527ar.

Sinha, V., & Kozlowski, A. (2013). The structure of Aboriginal child welfare in Canada. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 4(2), 1-21. doi:10.18584/iipj.2013.4.2.2.

Statistics Canada. (2022). Indigenous population continues to grow and is much younger than the non-Indigenous population, although the pace of growth has slowed. Retrieved from Ottawa, Ontario: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/220921/dq220921a-eng.pdf?st=LZzBUiFL.

Trocmé, N., Roy, C., & Esposito, T. (2016). Building research capacity in child welfare in Canada. Child Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 10(16). doi:10.1186/s13034-016-0103-x.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015a). Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future. Retrieved from Winnipeg, Manitoba: https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp‑content/uploads/2021/01/Executive_Summary_English_Web.pdf.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015b). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. Retrieved from Winnipeg, Manitoba: https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Calls_to_Action_ English2.pdf.

Turner, A. (2016). Living arrangements of Aboriginal children aged 14 and under. Retrieved from Ottawa, Ontario: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2016001/article/14547-eng.htm.

United Nations. (2007). United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html.

White, L., & Jacobs, E. (1992). Liberating our children, liberating our Nations: Report of the Aboriginal Committee, Community Panel, Family and Children’s Services Legislation Review in British Columbia. Retrieved from Victoria, British Columbia: https://archive.org/details/liberatingourchi0000comm/page/n1/mode/2up.

Whitt-Woosley, A., Sprang, G., & Eslinger, J. (2022). Foster care during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative analysis of caregiver and professional experiences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 124(105444). doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105444.

Wray, M., & Sinha, V. (2015). Foster care disparity for Aboriginal children in 2011 (CWRP Information Sheet #166E). Retrieved from Montreal, Quebec: https://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/166e.pdf.