Report 5: Socio-economic Gaps on First Nations Reserves—Indigenous Services Canada. Measuring Well-Being on First Nations Reserves – April 2015 – December 2017

The Department did not have a comprehensive picture of the well-being of on-reserve First Nations people compared with other Canadians

Over-all Message

5.17     Overall, we found that Indigenous Services Canada’s main measure of socio-economic well-being on reserves, the Community Well-Being index, was not comprehensive¹. While the index included Statistics Canada data on education, employment, income, and housing, it omitted several aspects of well-being that are also important to First Nations people—such as health, environment, language, and culture.

5.18     We also found that the Department did not adequately use the large amount of program data provided by First Nations, nor did it adequately use other available data and information. The Department also did not meaningfully engage with First Nations to satisfactorily measure and report on whether the lives of people on First Nations reserves were improving. For example, the Department did not adequately measure and report on the education gap. In fact, our calculations showed that this gap had widened in the past 15 years.

5.19     These findings matter because measuring and reporting on progress in closing socio-economic gaps would help everyone involved—including Parliament, First Nations, the federal government, other departments, and other partners—to understand whether their efforts to improve lives are working. If the gaps are not smaller in future years, this would mean that the federal approach needs to change.

Collecting, Using and Sharing First Nations Education Data

Overall, we found that education results for First Nations students have not improved relative to those of other Canadians.

• We found that despite commitments the Department made 18 years ago, Indigenous Services Canada did not collect relevant data, or adequately use data to improve education programs and inform funding decisions. It also did not assess the relevant data it collected, for accuracy and completeness. Nor did the Department provide access to or regularly share its education information or the results of data analysis with First Nations. In addition, the Department was still unable to report how federal funding for on-reserve education compared with the funding levels for other education systems across Canada.
• These findings matter because the Department and First Nations communities that deliver education need complete and accurate data to make evidence-based decisions and, ultimately, to improve education results and socio-economic well-being.

Reporting on First Nations’ education results

The Department’s reporting was incomplete and inaccurate

5.84     Overall, we found that the Department’s reporting to Parliament on education was inaccurate. The Department’s method of calculating and reporting the on-reserve high school graduation rate of First Nations students overstated the graduation rate because it did not account for students who dropped out between grades 9 and 11. For example, the Department’s reported data showed that, from 2011 to 2016, on average, about one in two (46%) First Nations students graduated, whereas our calculations showed that, on average, only about one in four (24%) students actually completed high school within 4 years. Moreover, between the 2014–15 and the 2015–16 fiscal years, the Department’s data showed that the graduation rate was improving, but our calculations showed that it was declining.

5.85     We also found that the Department did not report on most (17 of 23) education results it had committed to reporting on, to determine whether progress was being made to close the gap. For example, it did not report on student attendance or the delivery of First Nations’ language instruction.

5.86     These findings matter because, without complete and accurate information, Canadians, First Nations, and parliamentarians were not fully informed about the true extent of First Nations’ education results or the education gap.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201805_05_e_43037.html – hd2e

Note 1: Community Well-Being

The National Indigenous Economic Development Board “2019 Indigenous Economic Development Progress Report” emphasized in its recommendations that The Community well-being index was identified by the Auditor General as lacking comprehensiveness in focusing primarily on economic indicators, not sufficiently utilizing First Nations data and not meaningfully engaging with First Nations to consider Indigenous meanings of community well-being. Health, the environment, language and culture are aspects that are being considered for future study and the Department has committed to working with Indigenous organizations to co-develop a broad dashboard of well-being outcomes to reflect mutually agreed upon metrics. Although the integration of new metrics will make historical comparisons of the CWB problematic, the more thorough assessment of community well-being for Indigenous communities will add considerable value. Consulting with all Indigenous groups will ensure diverse lived- experiences are considered. We look forward to these improvements in measuring outcomes of community well-being for the 2022 Report.