Current Problems and Issues in Child Welfare

Manitoba Governments clawback of the federal Child Special Benefit (CSA) from First Nations

April 14, 2020 – Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs are seriously concerned about Manitoba fast tracking Bill 34, “The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act“. If passed, the Bill will have serious implications on First Nations children in care. On March 19, 2020 the Manitoba government introduced Bill 34. The Bill is currently seeking to legalize Manitoba’s actions of recovering the Child Special Allowance since January 1, 2005, when they started taking the child tax credit away. In 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of the off -reserve children who had their CSA’s clawed back. A trial date is set for this September. But if Bill 34 passes by September the Manitoba government would not be held responsible for their actions and the lawsuit would be invalid.

“From 2005 to 2019, approximately $338 million dollars of the Child Special Allowance (CSA) funds meant for First Nations children in care were stolen by the provincial government. This is an illegal action. We have a government trying to justify their actions, wiping their hands clean from the claw backs of the CSA by protecting themselves from any legal recourse through Bill 34,” stated Chief Karen Batson of Pine Creek First Nation. ”This is a human rights violation and is another example of how the provincial government has neglected children in care in the past, present, and now future,” concluded Chief Batson.

Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc. (MKO), the Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF) and the Southern Chiefs’ Organization (SCO) are particularly concerned by section 8, “which sets out to legally end the ability of current and former children in care to sue the Manitoba government for clawing back their monthly Children’s Special Allowance (CSA).

Government of Quebec’s request that the Quebec Court of Appeal rule on the constitutionality of Bill C-92: The Child Welfare Act.

Dec. 20, 2019 – Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Perry Bellegarde says the Government of Quebec’s decision to request that the Quebec Court of Appeal rule on the constitutionality of Bill C-92, the Indigenous child welfare act, is a setback that will further harm First Nations children and families.

This move could lead to delay and conflict, further harming our children and families. The AFN will look to intervene in this case and we expect the federal government to stand with us in upholding First Nations jurisdiction. We need urgent action to address the discrimination and the legacy of our children taken from their families and Nations. Bill C-92 affirms First Nations jurisdiction over child welfare.

Feb. 12, 2020 – The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador (AFNQL) and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission (FNQLHSSC) presented a joint brief to the Laurent Commission (Special Commission on the Rights of Children and Youth Protection) aimed in particular at reaffirming the rights of First Nations to decide on the future and education of their children. The two organizations made recommendations that affect Act C-92, Bill 31, which aims to authorize the communication of personal information concerning certain missing or deceased Aboriginal children to their families, and the Youth Protection Act (YPA). The AFNQL and the FNQLHSSC have reiterated their constitutional right to manage family support and youth protection services, according to Act C-92, and are asking the Government of Quebec to withdraw its dispute and negotiate coordination agreements in good faith with First Nations governments and Canada. With regard to the YPA, they are also calling for:

  • Indigenous children to be exempted from the application of the maximum periods of foster care and
  • that the regulation on financial assistance to promote the adoption and tutorship of a child be amended.

More generally, the two organizations recommend that Quebec implement measures that respond appropriately to the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the calls to action of the Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Québec.

City of Montreal and Batshaw Youth and Family Centre  for chronic “institutional” issues in Indigenous child welfare

Nov. 19, 2019 – (APTN): Release of “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Child Welfare Services for indigenous clientele living in Montreal” presents a scathing analysis of Indigenous youth care in the Montreal area. Assembled over three years by stakeholders from the Native Women’s Shelter of Montreal, Concordia University, Rising Sun Daycare, and the Youth Department of the public health network, Centre Integre Universitaire de Sante et de Services Sociaux Ouest de l’ile de Montreal (CIUSSS-ODIM), the goal of the project was to “gain a better understanding of the ways Indigenous children and families are responded to by the child welfare system in Montreal.” Some of the issues identified in the report include:

  • Children from Nunavik were told to stop speaking in Inuktitut
  • all Inuit children were placed with non-Indigenous foster families
  • apprehended children wished to remain in contact with their family but were denied access by social workers or foster families.
  • Children removed from home are not offered any emotional support and siblings are often denied contact or access to each other
  • Foster families lack of knowledge and sensitization has resulted in racist comments and prejudice towards the children’s parents

At the time of the report’s publication, Batshaw “did not employ any Indigenous people.” Of the health network’s estimated 10,000 employees, there are less than 10 Indigenous employees. Even the network’s sole “Indigenous liaison” is non-Indigenous.

The “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back” report identifies 22 Recommendations under the following themes:

  • Education for Non-Indigenous Staff, Leaders and Decision-Makers (3 aligned with 8 Viens Commission Calls for Action)
  • Representations (7 aligned with 4 Viens Commission Calls to Action)
  • Policy Level Changes (12 aligned with 10 Viens Commission Calls to Action)

CIUSSS-ODIM is to deliver an annual progress report with the first report due in Dec 15, 2020

.https://aptnnews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/One-step-forward-two-steps-back-_FINAL-REPORT-2019.pdf

Federal Government for asking for a Judicial Review of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Damages award

Why?
Oct. 6, 2019 – The federal government has asked for a judicial review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decision to award $2B in damages to approximately 53,000 Indigenous children and youth wrongly removed or denied essential services. The CHRT panel found that the government racially discriminated against First Nations children in care in a willful and reckless manner. As a result, the CHRT ordered Canada to pay the maximum amount allowable under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Comment
he government could have addressed the broken system and the funding inequalities before, but they didn’t. To appeal this CHRT ruling, which was meant to provide a measure of justice for First Nations children in care, is hurtful and unjust.” AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde.The CHRT has issued eight non-compliance orders against Canada since its original ruling in January 2016.
Potential Solution
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Citation: 2019 CHRT39, Sept. 6, 2019 File No.: T1340/7008 We believe that the Creator has entrusted us with the sacred responsibility to raise our families…for we realize healthy families are the foundation of strong and healthy communities. The future of our communities lies with our children, who need to be nurtured within their families and communities. (see 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), Gathering strength, vol. 3, p. 10 part of the Tribunal’s evidence record). Children hold a special place in Aboriginal cultures (…) They must be protected from harm (…). They bring a purity of vision to the world that can teach their elders. They carry within them the gifts that manifest themselves as they become teachers, mothers, hunters, councillors, artisans and visionaries. They renew the strength of the family, clan and village and make the elders young again with their joyful presence. Failure to care for these gifts bestowed on the family, and to protect children from the betrayal of others, is perhaps the greatest shame that can befall an Aboriginal family. It is a shame that countless Aboriginal families have experienced, some of them repeatedly over generations. (see RCAP, Gathering strength vol. 3, p. 21). https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/2019_chrt_39.pdf

Federal Government and Government of Ontario – Deaths of Indigenous children in care

Why?
Sept. 25, 2019 – 72 Indigenous children connected to child welfare died in northern Ontario, where three Indigenous agencies covering most of the territory were underfunded approximately $400 million over a five-year period.
The number of deaths jumps to 102 Indigenous children when looking at the entire province between 2013 to 2017.  Almost half of the deaths, 48 in total, happened in the two years it took Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to respond to multiple orders made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that first found Canada guilty of purposely underfunding on-reserve child welfare in its historic decision on Jan. 26, 2016. 
Suicide = 38; Accident = 24; Undetermined = 22; Natural = 17; Homicide = 1 (APTN)
Comment
But while the federal government may be the bagman, funding at least 93 per cent of on-reserve child welfare, the Ontario government created the system where these children died and provides the law within which the child welfare agencies operate. It’s a system that has been found to be a complete failure over and over up until just last year when the chief coroner of Ontario released a special report into the deaths of 12 children who died in care, eight of whom were Indigenous.
During the five-year period between 2013 and 2017 the coroner lists 541 deaths involving child welfare and 102 were Indigenous. Indigenous people represent less than three per cent of Ontario’s population.
https://aptnnews.ca/2019/09/25/inside-a-child-welfare-system-where-102-indigenous-kids-died-over-5-years/
Potential Solution
“Safe with Intervention” – Report of the Expert Panel on the deaths of Children and Youth in residential Placements September 2018. Office of the Chief Coroner
To the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario: 
1.     Immediately provide equitable, culturally and spiritually safe and relevant services to Indigenous young people, families and communities in Ontario. 
To the Ministries of Children, Community and Social Services, Education, Health and Long-Term Care, and Indigenous Affairs: 
2.     Identify and provide a set of core services and support an integrated system of care for young people and their families across a wholistic continuum to every child in Ontario. Services must include health, mental health and wellbeing, education, recreation, child care, children’s mental health, early intervention services, prevention services and developmental services. Service provision should be geared to the needs and intensity of needs, of each young person and family. 
3. Develop a wholistic approach to the identification of, service planning for and service provision to high-risk young people (with or without child welfare involvement) that supports continuity of care to age 21 years. 
4. Strengthen accountability and opportunities for continuous improvement of the systems of care through measurement, evaluation and public reporting. 
To the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services: 
5. Immediately enhance the quality and availability of placements for young people in care. 
https://www.provincialadvocate.on.ca/publications/external-reports/safe-with-intervention.pdf

Government of Manitoba for using Birth Alerts as a policy to apprehend indigenous babies

Why?
Sept. 19, 2019 – There isn’t a plan to end the use of birth alerts in Manitoba — when social service workers warn hospitals of at-risk expectant mothers without the parents’ consent — but the province is reviewing the practice along with the child welfare system as a whole. The province’s comments come after British Columbia’s government announced it is no longer issuing birth alerts, instead focusing on better supporting at-risk, expectant parents collaboratively.
Comment
“The continued use of birth alerts is under review in Manitoba,” a Manitoba Families spokesperson wrote in an email statement. “We have heard concerns related to the previous birth alert practice stemming from our legislative review committee and the MMIWG inquiry.” In Manitoba, 282 infants under four days old were taken into care in 2017-2018. Roughly 90 per cent of children in care in Manitoba are Indigenous.
Potential Solution
Sept. 16, 2019 – BC is changing its approach in cases where children might be at risk. Instead of alerts, the province will collaborate with parents expecting a child to keep newborns safe and families together. The alerts have been mainly used in cases involving marginalized women, including a disproportionate number of Indigenous women, the province said in its announcement Monday. (CBC)

Government of Manitoba for refusing to meet indigenous Leadership Council to review Block Funding changes

Why?
Feb. 22, 2019 – The government of Manitoba met with the Indigenous Leadership Council (Manitoba Metis Federation, Southern Chiefs’ Organization and Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak) for first time in over two years despite a previous commitment to meet every quarter.
The heads of the Indigenous Leadership Council met again with Minister of Families Heather Stefanson on Apr. 3, 2019 over concerns with the province’s block funding for child welfare that is still based on the old funding formula that rewards removing children from homes. There is no room in this block funding for prevention, no support to keep our families together. Right now, the proposed changes amount to $41.66 a month or a $1.39 per day for each child. Manitoba Metis Federation President David Chartrand,
Comment
By relying on the federal Children’s Special Allowance (CSA) program to offset maintenance costs, the province is forcing our children to pay for their own care.” Under the federal government, the Children’s Special Allowance program is administered on a per-child basis and is equivalent to the combined maximum of the Canada Child Benefit (CBA) and Child Disability Benefit (CDB). These payments are meant for children in care. However, Manitoba is reducing child maintenance against the CSA funding. The Indigenous Leadership Council stands united in the fight for our children and families.”
Potential Solution

Quebec Government, Ministry of Health and Social Services and Ministry Delegate for Health and Social Services for lack of progress on recommendations on child and youth protection services in Nunavik

Why?
Mar. 25, 2019 – The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse raised concerns about the lack of progress on the implementation of recommendations from their 2007 report on child and youth protection services in Nunavik, a follow-up report in 2010, in 2014 and again in 2016.
Comment
In March 2018, the Commission presented these findings to the Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Québec: listening, reconciliation and progress. (The Viens Commission)
Potential Solution
The Commission reiterates the urgency to act in order to create favourable conditions for these communities so they can finally ensure real protection for their rights through the implementation of concrete support measures, in particular by allocating sufficient resources to solve urgent problems related to housing, education, drug addiction and access to health and social services in the field of youth protection.
Philippe-André Tessier, President, The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse

Federal Government – Issues with “Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families

Why?
March 21, 2019 – “Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families” was graded as follows by the Yellowhead Institute of Ryerson University based on analysis by five Indigenous legal scholars.
https://yellowheadinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/does-bill-c-92-make-the-grade_-full-report.pdf
Comment
GRADES:
      National Standards: …………………… C
      Funding: ……………………………………….F
      Accountability: …………………………… D
      Jurisdiction: ……………………………….. D
      Data Collection and Reporting: ….D
Potential Solution
National Standards:
Ensure that standards exist in law so that Indigenous children do not automatically become government wards without significant efforts are made to maintain familial and community care. 
Require ongoing legal relationships, or at the least, access to children’s family of origin. 
Include strong, mandatory language around BIOC to address judicial bias and overtake any binding precedents in this area. 
Include “active efforts” or “maximum contact” clauses in relation to Indigenous child welfare with First Nations have not taken over full jurisdiction. 
A requirement of written documentation of active efforts to find placements according to the priority set out or affidavit evidence from the Indigenous group that there is no available placement. And/
or a presumption that an access order with some family or community member and a long-term funding commitment for regular travel back to the community is included as a term of any permanency order.
Funding 
·       Attach clear federal funding commitments for First Nations pursuing child welfare jurisdiction. 
·       Ensure funding reflects the principle of substantive equality and which also meets the needs and circumstances of children on reserve 
·       Ensure off-reserve, Métis, non-status and Inuit children and families are included in budgets, distinct from non-Indigenous children and families. 
·       Compel coordination between federal and provincial governments regarding incentives to cooperate and adequately fund Indigenous governing bodies to implement Jordan’s Principle. 
·       Provide clarity around the inclusion of the provincial funding obligations. 
Accountability
·       Establish a dispute resolution mechanism to deal with situations where Indigenous groups experience challenges in entering collaboration agreements with Canada and the provinces, in the cases they are required. 
·       Create an independent body to hear disputes and make binding decisions on all parties. 
Jurisdiction
·       Recognize jurisdiction as a right to self- determination under UNDRIP rather than a s. 35 right. 
·       Set a clear path out of the existing jurisdictional squabbling between the provincial and federal governments. 
·       Revise paramountcy rules so they are clear enough for, and accessible to community members, so that can understand in time sensitive or emergency circumstances. 
·       Contain clear conflict of laws principles and processes that give real weight to Indigenous law-making authority and jurisdiction. 
·       Address the long-standing issue of services to First Nations children who are residing off-reserve, as well as non-status, Métis and Inuit children. 
·       Provide clarity and direction on how the “Best Interests Of the Child” (BIOC) standard will be defined regarding the applicability of laws. At minimum this should clarify a standard for best interests of the Indigenous child— determined by Indigenous legal and community standards—and dictate the application of federal and provincial laws to Indigenous children. 
·       Clearly and openly resolve the lack of funding for Indigenous law-making, administration and enforcement as well as funding for the preventative of child and family health. 
Data Collecting and Reporting
·       Mandate collection and publication of data along the lines of TRC Call to Action #2 
·       Address privacy issues by anonymized and displaying data in aggregate. 
https://yellowheadinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/does-bill-c-92-make-the-grade_factsheet.pdf

Government of Manitoba for refusing to appoint an independent inquiry into the death of Tina Fontaine

Why?
Mar. 12, 2019 – Refusal to appoint an independent inquiry into the death of Tina Fontaine as requested by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and an initial refusal to implement the recommendations of the Manitoba Advocate for Child and Youth report.
Comment
In March 2018, the AMC Chiefs-in-Assembly called for an independent inquiry into the death of Tina Fontaine that would be established under the authority of First Nations jurisdiction, and examine the actions and inactions of the Winnipeg Police Service, CFS and hospital staff that were involved with Tina Fontaine prior to her death; be funded by the province and/or federal government; consist of First Nation commissioners; and report to the AMC Chiefs-In-Assembly, Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. The Manitoba government has said it will not call a public inquiry into Tina Fontaine’s death because the Manitoba Advocate for Child and Youth was already conducting its investigation.
Potential Solution
March 19, 2019 – (Winnipeg Free Press). When 15-year-old Tina Fontaine was trying to survive on Winnipeg streets in the summer of 2014, none of the city’s Indigenous programs that focus on ending child sexual exploitation knew she was out there. When Manitoba’s Advocate for Children and Youth released its long-awaited investigation into the teen’s life and death last week, none of those groups were consulted. 
Members of the Sexually Exploited Youth Community Coalition are raising concerns about the advocate’s recommendation that Manitoba create “safe, secure, home-like settings for treatment and programming” when youths are in immediate danger. Recommending “secure care,” the group worries, could lead to youths being involuntarily locked up. All the more reason to conduct a comprehensive independent inquiry into her death.

Federal Government for lack of funding for Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families

Why?
Feb. 28, 2019 – Failure to include any funding for the implementation of Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families” in Budget 2019 or commitments to any ongoing funding
Comment
All funding decisions have been left to federal, provincial and territory governments “to negotiate” with Indigenous organizations.
Potential Solution (Yellowhead Institute)
Funding 
·       Attach clear federal funding commitments for First Nations pursuing child welfare jurisdiction. 
·       Ensure funding reflects the principle of substantive equality and which also meets the needs and circumstances of children on reserve 
·       Ensure off-reserve, Métis, non-status and Inuit children and families are included in budgets, distinct from non-Indigenous children and families. 
·       Compel coordination between federal and provincial governments regarding incentives to cooperate and adequately fund Indigenous governing bodies to implement Jordan’s Principle. 
·       Provide clarity around the inclusion of the provincial funding obligations. 

Manitoba Government for failing to consult Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs on changes to child welfare funding model when over 87% of children-in-care are Indigenous

Why?
Feb. 14, 2019 – Decision by the provincial government to change the child welfare funding model without consulting the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) and also ignoring the “Bringing Our Children Home Act” adopted by AMC Resolution in October, 2018 to transfer full authority for Child Welfare to First Nations. 
Comment
“The province of Manitoba continues to ignore the longstanding position and resolutions of the AMC Chiefs-in-Assembly that seeks to reassert First Nations’ jurisdiction and approach to our children and families,” Hudson said in Wednesday’s statement, adding the province did not consult with First Nation leadership on the decision. (APTN). 
Potential Solution
Bringing Our Children Home –Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) established the First Nations Family Advocate (FNFAO) office in 2015 in order to address the excessive number of Children in Care in Manitoba (over 10,000 at the time) and also establish a First Nation operated organization that would serve to provide family support and advocacy for both First Nation children and First Nation families as well. The Manitoba Chiefs in Assembly created this outside of the existing provincial model.

Government of Ontario for eliminating the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth.

Why?
Nov. 15, 2018 – Eliminating the Office of the Ontario Child Advocate and repeal of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth Act, 2007. The Ontario Child Advocate serves as an independent watchdog to investigate ill-treatment of children in the child welfare system and to review government policy and practice around services to children. The office’s mandate includes providing a voice for First Nations children and those with special needs. (CBC)
Comment
The Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates (CCCYA) is an alliance of legislatively mandated advocates for the rights of children and youth. Each CCCYA member office is established by legislation to operate in a manner that is independent from government authority or control. Only the NWT does not have a Child and Youth Advocate.  Except now – Ontario, with the largest provincial population. In Ontario, Indigenous children account for 4.1 per cent of the population under 15 but make up 30 per cent of children in foster care. (CBC)
Potential Solution
Join the other 11 provinces and territories who have established and maintain a Child and Youth Advocate Office that is independent of government.

Federal Government’s failure to apply Jordan’s Principle to non-status First Nations children living off reserve

Why?
July, 2018 – Refusing to allow Jordan’s Principle to apply to non-status First Nation’s children living off reserve even though these children have been accepted as members of their respective First Nations.
Comment
Cindy Blackstock of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society told Canada in July 2018 that the definition of “First Nations child” for the purpose of implementing Jordan’s Principle needed to be broadened. It should be up to the nations, not the government, to determine who is a member of the community. Tanya Talaga. Hamilton Spectator
Potential Solution

Government of British Columbia’s use of Birth Alerts to apprehend newborn Indigenous babies.

Why?
March 6, 2018 – A recent decision (Jan-Feb 2018) by provincial social workers to apprehend an Indigenous newborn and not allow the mother sufficient time to breastfeed and bond was based on a racist, paternalistic approach to child welfare, B.C.’s watchdog for children and youth says. (Globe and Mail, March 6, 2018)
Comment
The B.C. Supreme Court last month ruled that officials with the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) must provide the mother, who cannot be identified, with daily access to her baby girl, but the ministry’s lawyers were back in court on Tuesday seeking to overturn the order.
Potential Solution
Sept. 16, 2019 – British Columbia’s government announced it is no longer issuing birth alerts, instead focusing on better supporting at-risk, expectant parents collaboratively.

Manitoba Government for unreasonable delays in scheduling court hearings to resolve child welfare apprehensions.

Why?
March 15, 2017 – Manitoba’s highest court has delivered a historic and precedent-setting decision which recognizes that First Nations families and children are disproportionately affected by long delays in obtaining court hearings following the apprehension of children by child welfare authorities, and that they suffer unique and specific harm from that delay.
Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services) v. H.H. and C.G., 2017 MBCA 33
Comment
Nearly 90% of all children in care in Manitoba are Indigenous. Many of them are seized at birth and placed in non-Indigenous homes pending the outcome of post-apprehension hearings. Delays in post-apprehension hearings result in these children being raised outside of the culture, language and traditions of their families and communities.
(NetNewsLedger)
Potential Solution

Governments of Manitoba, Nova Scotia and PEI for failing to sign tripartite agreements with First Nations governments to implement Jordan’s Principle

Why?
Feb. 23, 2017 – 10 years of failing to enact Jordan’s Principal after unanimous passage of a Members Bill in the House of Commons in 2007
Comment
Some provinces have not signed a Tripartite agreement (Federal, Provincial and First Nations): i.e.  Manitoba, Nova Scotia, PEI excluded First Nations from discussion. 
Potential Solution
In the spirit go reconciliation sign a tripartite agreement with the federal government to end the relevant First Nations authority in each province and territory that’s nit yet done so,

Federal Government, Ministry Indigenous and Northern Affairs and Ministry of Justice for ongoing failure to cover funding shortfall in Child Welfare

Why?
April 26, 2016 – Ongoing refusal to implement full funding shortfall. Since tribunal decision in Jan. 2016, the federal govt has spent $707,000 on legal costs and disbursements, more than enough to cover the immediate funding shortfall.
Comment
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has issued 7 compliance orders (April 2016, Sept. 2016, May 2017, Feb. 2018) after their initial decision (Jan. 2016) for the federal govt. to comply. 
Potential Solution
Feb. 21, 2018 – The federal government committed to cover ALL costs for the delivery of First Nations child welfare retroactive to Jan. 26, 2016. This addresses some of the funding shortfall (34.6% as identified by Auditor-General report) but does not resolve ongoing systemic issues in health, justice, education, housing, food security etc. that persist and contribute to the problem.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: