An Anti-Oppression (AO) Framework
for Child Welfare in Ontario, Canada:
Possibilities for Systemic Change
June Ying Yee*, Christian Hackbusch, and Helen Wong
*Correspondence to June Ying Yee M.S.W., Ph.D., Associate Professor and Academic Coordinator of the Internationally Educated Social Work Professionals Bridging Program,
Ryerson University, School of Social Work, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2K3,
Canada. Christian Hackbusch, MTS, MSW, is currently the Co-ordinator of Training and
Development at the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, and Helen Wong, MSW, is currently an
Organizational Development Consultant specializing in the areas of anti-oppression, equity
and inclusion.
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
This article presents the development and potential use of a method of bringing systemic
change to a mandated institution such as the Children’s Aid Society in Ontario, Canada,
while taking into account the many challenges to realising progressive change in child
welfare practice. The authors explore whether systemic change is possible given contemporary child welfare’s manifold standardised procedures, including risk and safety assessment and legal reporting requirements. The second author discusses his viewpoint and
experiences as a member of the Anti-Oppression Roundtable, and outlines its work as a
catalyst for critical review of practices and processes. The authors describe the genesis
and development of the Anti-Oppression Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario and
provide an example to show how it can be used as an important strategic tool to try to
bring systemic change to the child welfare system. The article concludes by reviewing
some of the challenges in choosing to take this path of implementing an AO framework
in the face of increasing criticism directed to child welfare agencies.
Keywords: Anti-oppressive practice, child welfare, management, organisation,
bureaucracy
Accepted: June 2013
# The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of
The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.
British Journal of Social Work (2015) 45, 474–492
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct141
Advance Access publication September 7, 2013
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
Introduction
It is the intent of this article to shed some light on the challenges of promoting
systemic change to a mandated institution such as the Children’s Aid Society
in Ontario, Canada, as well as describe a method of doing so. This paper
exploreswhether systemic change is possible giventhe manifold standardised
procedures in child welfare, including risk and safety assessment and legal
reporting requirements. We outline the roles played by the authors of this
article in developing the Anti-Oppression Framework for Child Welfare in
Ontario, and discuss the necessity for anti-oppression (AO) practice in
child welfare from a systemic perspective at this time in the history of child
welfare. The second author discusses his role and experiences as Co-Chair
of the Anti-Oppression Roundtable in Ontario and why he believes that an
AO framework in child welfare is the next logical step needed to push for
internal, systemic change. After outlining how the AO framework was developed, the authors present its components and potential application, and why
it may be an important strategic tool for introducing systemic change to the
child welfare system. Finally, the authors discuss some of the challenges in
choosing to take this path of implementing an AO framework in the face of
increasing criticism made towards child welfare agencies.
The child welfare system in Canada is fraught with tensions and challenges
(Dumbrill, 2003; Strega and Carriere, 2009). Children’s Aid Societies of
Ontario must balance their responsibility to protect children from abuse
and neglect with supporting the capacity and abilities of families to take
care of their children. The reality is that many families who come into
contact with Children’s Aid Societies lack the material and financial
resources needed to adequately support their families. If the welfare state
is unable to address the material and financial resource needs of families,
then what is the role of the Children Aid Societies other than to remove
children at risk from individual families that falter? Apprehending children
can result in greater state spending on families, without addressing the root
cause of the problem (Strega and Carriere, 2009; Dumbrill, 2005). In fact,
Duncan (2004) has argued that the child welfare system fails to prevent
crises of neglect and abuse; it has been transformed into a force that spends
most of its time investigating cases of abuse—a costly and never-ending
endeavour. Duncan (2004) further argues that, until the problem of child
poverty is addressed, the child welfare system will continue to fail to recognise
the social and economic problems that families face, especially disadvantaged
racial minority families.
A plethora of literature documents the overrepresentation of various
marginalised groups whose children are brought into care, most notably
Aboriginal and black children (Busch et al., 2008; Clark et al., 2008; Dettlaff
and Rycraft, 2008, 2010; James et al., 2008). The statistics on the large number
of Indigenous children in care are overwhelming. Strega and Carriere (2009,
An AO Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario, Canada 475
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
pp. 17–18) note that ‘the primary determinants of whether or not a family
comes to the attention of child welfare authorities are race and poverty’.
They specify that ‘although provincial child welfare data vary, it is estimated
that acrossCanada 38percentof children in care (approximately 25,000ofthe
66,000) are Indigenous despite representing only 5 percent of the child population in Canada’. Several Aboriginal authors (Green and Thomas, 2009;
Carriere and Sinclair, 2009; Baskin, 2011; Sinclair, 2009; Sinclair, 2010)
argue that the systems in place in contemporary child welfare practice
extend the colonising practices of the past. Given the colonial history of
Canada, and the myriad ways in which government policies and state structures have harmed and continue to harm Indigenous peoples and communities, we acknowledge thatthe application of an AO framework is limited in its
scope to address entrenched oppression. Ultimately, an AO framework can
only be viewed as a practical tool to understand, critique and improve current
practices of social work agencies, including exposing the rules, ideas and
belief systems that have become embedded within institutional practices.
Understanding how the particularities of a colonial past continue to
operate within current organisational cultures requires the insertion and application of specific theories into the framework. Mullaly (2010, p. 19) notes
that AO advocates have eschewed attempts ‘to formulate an overarching (or
totalising) theory of oppression because one theory cannot possibly account
for the many forms and sources of oppression, their dynamics and impacts,
their interactions and internalizations, their subjective and objective
aspects, and so on’. Therefore, we suggest that use of an AO framework
be complemented by multiple critical viewpoints; the administrative and
policy decision-making processes of child welfare agencies should be examinedthroughthe lens of anti-colonialism and decolonising theories and methodologies, and, similarly, through the lens of anti-black racism theories and
methodologies, to identify and challenge practices that oppress Aboriginal
and black communities. Such approaches would open avenues for tackling
the structures, processes and practices within organisational cultures that
maintain and reproduce exclusion (Mullaly, 2010).
Application of an anti-oppression framework allows for institution-wide
change that can be more encompassing than a largely piecemeal approach
by practitioners as has been undertaken so far. According to Baines (2011,
p. 4), ‘rather than a single approach, anti-oppressive practice (AOP) is an
umbrella term for a number of social justice-oriented approaches to social
work, including feminist, Marxist, postmodernist, Indigeneous, poststructuralist, critical constructionist, anti-colonial and anti-racist’. It is difficult to
apply these theoretical approaches in a pure way to the social work practice
field since they are not meant to answer every social problem and are not
ideologies simply to be imposed and enacted (Baines, 2011). Furthermore,
it is impossible for any broad model to address the unique, specific needs
of particular population groups given that social service agencies operate
476 June Ying Yee et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
in the context of ‘global capitalism, neoliberalism, and managerialism’
(Baines, 2011, p. 10).
Yet, many writers have attempted to translate these theories into front line
practice work. In fact, many of the attempts to integrate theory to AOP are
done at the individual-level practice. Wide-scale systemic and structural
change is difficult to achieve given the constraints operating in the structures
of social service organisations as well as other socio-political realities that
reinforce the status quo. In fact, Baines (2011) provides a lengthy list of
new writings on AOP:
Carniol and De Valle (2007) provide practice insights into AOP with immigrant women; Danso (2009) does the same for de-valued, skilled immigrants;
Fish (2008) provides a theoretical foundation for AOP with lesbian, gay, and
bi-sexual people; Pollack (2010, 2004) delves in AOP with women in prison;
Parrott (2009) extends understandings of AOP in the context of cultural diversity; MacDonald (2008) discusses AOP with chronic pain suffers and
people with disabilities; Brown and Augusta-Scott (2006) critically engage
with narrative therapy to produce more empowering outcomes for clients;
Aronson and Smith (2010) explores resistance among social justice-oriented
managers and supervisors; and Todd and Coholic (2007) analyze the challenges of teaching AOP to diverse and resistive students, including Christian
fundamentalists (Baines, 2011, pp. 11–12).
Examples of current, positive AOP in Canada have involved focusing simultaneously at the individual and systemic levels to address inequities
experienced by marginalised groups. One example of AOP is to connect ‘individual problems and individuals to others in the same situation, drawing
links between personal gain, political inequities, social policies, and economic forces’ (Baines, 2011, p. 10). For instance, this may include the service
provider being continuously aware of the dynamics of the client–service provider relationship, while at the same time understanding how systemic
oppression may impact the circumstances of the client and, subsequently,
being able to collaborate with the client to address their needs. Another
example of positive AOP would be for the social service professional to
analyse from an anti-oppressive perspective ‘the impact of new global
management models and social policy frameworks’ (Baines, 2011, p. 12) so
that they can identify neo-liberal practices that reinforce dominant norms
and, consequently, develop alternate, creative strategies that can genuinely
respond to addressing social inequities (Baines, 2011). For instance, this
may include examining through an anti-oppressive lens current agency or
governmental services and programmes, and identifying where programmes
and supports can be more equitable to respond to marginalised groups and
also promote community capacity building. However, these examples of
AOP in Canada are limited to individual practices and, to date, there has
been no comprehensive attempt to address AOP as part of an organisational
change strategy that involves examining and addressing the gaps in the
organisation’s structures, processes and culture.
An AO Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario, Canada 477
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
Possibilities for system change
As the evidence on disparity and disproportionality shows, there are clear
contradictions between the positive intent of child welfare policy and the
negative impacts of its implementation. Therefore, ‘until we put the child
welfare system itself under scrutiny there can be no change in the current
negative outcomes that disproportionately impact certain already marginalized groups’ (Wong and Yee, 2010, p. 7).
The question is how to begin. We believe that an AO framework that
incorporates both a process for organisational change and a logic model
that integrates progressive values and goals may be used to transform exclusionary and oppressive practices into those that promote more equitable
outcomes (Wong and Yee, 2010). The integration of progressive values and
goals is the challenge, though the method may itself spark some controversy.
The adoption of conventional organisational techniques to create an AO
framework raises contentious debates about whether it is possible to
challenge the colonial, reactionary structures of child welfare without
being co-opted, if not mainstreamed, into reproducing the same dominating
practices of social control, regulation and exclusion (see Healy, 2002). More
specifically, is it possible to use a technique such as a logic model, which may
be considered a positivist, modernist tool, to employ and incorporate the
principles and values of AO?
We argue that the application of an anti-oppressive framework such as the
one described below can provide a practical tool to transform organisations,
even those that are historically and systemically based on neo-liberal and
managerial ideologies—that emphasise efficiency, accountability and resource savings at the expense of building the capacity of communities to
thrive in an unequal world (Baines, 2011). Building on the work of Stein
(2001) and Tsui and Cheung (2004), Aronson and Smith (2011, p. 434)
present the notion that organisations are ‘regulated by the apparently
neutral technologies associated with managerialism: performance measurement, audit and competitive contracting’. One could argue that these technologies reflect the organisation’s obsession with liability issues and the
desire to be risk-averse. Consequently, it is of no surprise that the public
has the perception of child welfare as being ‘baby snatchers’. The reality
is that child welfare organisations are under pressure not to miss a case
of child abuse or neglect, and therefore spend an inordinate amount of
their funds and resources in creating and applying tools that will meet this
performance demand. For example, the Ontario child welfare system
during the six-year period from 1998 to 2004 brought into care 63 per cent
more children than before, and its budget doubled from 542 million to
1.16 billion (Dumbrill, 2005, p. 9). The Children’s Aid Societies of Ontario’s
own internal documents remark that this ‘shift towards investigating and
regulating families and increased emphasis on liability and a fear of error
478 June Ying Yee et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
resulted in an increase of children being removed from homes as a protection
strategy’ (Dumbrill, 2005, p. 9). Since the child welfare system is based on a
managerialist model that emphasises metrics, numbers and outcomes, we
argue that perhaps more progressive practices can also be promoted and
implemented via that model’s methods. We need to find the spaces and
places of possibilities to transform such managerial–technical methods
into opportunities for change towards greater equity (Strega and Carriere,
2009).
An insider’s perspective: the role of the Anti-Oppression
Roundtable
As noted above, the second author of this article is the Co-Chair of the Child
Welfare Anti-Oppression Roundtable (hereafter referred to as theRoundtable), a forum for child welfare practitioners working in Ontario to develop,
support and share initiatives on AO work. The first and third authors were
contracted as consultants by the Roundtable to develop an Anti-Oppression
Framework for Child Welfare based on a province-wide consultation. The
Co-Chair of the Roundtable worked jointly with the consultants to lead,
steer and manage the development of the framework.
For the past twenty-five years, the second author has worked in child
welfare in many different capacities, including front line protection,
on-going supervision of protection services, and co-ordination of training
anddevelopment activitiesfor one ofCanada’s largest child welfare agencies.
His interest in AO resulted from a strong desire to share with others the many
struggles and challenges that he has faced in trying to introduce systemic
change to an institution that is mired in histories of oppression towards families. He has seen over the years how families have struggled to maintain the
capacity and right totake care oftheir own children. This section ofthe article
is an account of his perspective on the child welfare system.
Child welfare agencies in Ontario, as in other jurisdictions, are progressive
in articulating the rhetoric of respecting differences and addressing inequities, but, given the overrepresentation of marginalised groups that continues
to characterise their caseloads (Grant and Ojo, 2008), it is evident that efforts
to work anti-oppressively remain an unfulfilled ‘work in progress’. No organisation can claim to have all the answers yet it is crucial to address this issue
urgently.
As part of a highly regulated and publicly accountable institution, child
welfare work tends to isolate those who work within the system by keeping
everyone focused on and busy with responding to its managerialist and
often very technical objectives. Creative practices that enable the voices of
those most directly effected to be heard are not routinely sought, as few
spaces exist to encourage those working in the system to find approaches to
An AO Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario, Canada 479
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
supporting families, or ways of working that fall outside of applying the proscribed risk and safety models of intervention. It is assumed that creative
practices increase costs, but, ironically, some of them may in the long run
cost the system less (Dumbrill, 2003, 2006).
No longer content to remain silent about the need for change in the face of
this managerialist power, many of those working within the system do adopt
more activist politics and perspectives, and are uniting to work with numerous allies who are deeply committed to the hope and promise of lasting,
meaningful change at the institutional level. In Ontario, the longevity and
broad representation of the Roundtable, begun in 2007, and now representing more than twenty-five of the forty-seven provincial agencies, testifies to
widespread dissension from the status quo.
The role of theRoundtable is to promote understanding of how oppression
impacts child welfare work and to identify how those working in the field can
engage in a cycle of AO reforms to the benefit of both those using child
welfare services and those working within the system. Creating a space and
structure to develop, support and share strategies and initiatives has been
fundamental to supporting these objectives. The Roundtable continues to
creatively seek ways to work with senior management in agencies, with the
system’s umbrella organisation, the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid
Societies, and with other key stakeholders who are strategically pivotal in
providing leadership and informed decision making, all with the hope that
members can help to realise some real, meaningful systemic changes to
agency policy, structure and practice.
The Roundtable itself emerged as a grassroots effort within an established
group, the Interagency Training Committee, representing various Children’s
Aid Societies in the province. The initial task of developing a ‘diversity curriculum’ to assist service delivery personnel to work within an increasingly
multi-ethnic and multicultural population led to a number of unanticipated
discoveries. The first such discovery was that the concept of ‘diversity’,
while appropriately linked to the changing demographic realities seen
in most Canadian urban centres, did not sufficiently address issues of
power, privilege and social location from the perspective of child welfare
service users. The focus thus shifted from diversity to oppression or, more
aptly, AOP.
The curriculum development process further revealed that teaching AOP
in the classroom, while important, was insufficient for bringing about the
practice developments and improved service outcomes needed to be fundamentally transformative and effective in daily practice. Rather, such change
requires a broader, more comprehensive effort that addresses service planning, policy and protocol development. A basic conceptual structure or
framework to support a variety of related processes and activities was
needed to alter the systemic and institutional practices of agencies. To this
end, aRequestforProposalswasdrawn upwiththe objective of collaborating
with an expert inthe area of AO practice to design and conduct a consultation
480 June Ying Yee et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
withthoseworking inthe childwelfarefield inOntario and eventually publish
an AO practice framework. The first and third authors were selected from
those who responded, and have since added their energies, insights and
wisdom to that of the Roundtable members. After conducting the consultation, they published a practitioners’ guide in August 2010: the pioneering
Anti-Oppression Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario (see Wong and
Yee, 2010).
Throughout the existence of the Roundtable, its members have been
reminded of the unending challenges involved in bringing about progressive
AO changewithinthe context of a systemthat is largelydictatedbytheformal
institutional processes of Ministry mandates, government funding requirements and the other usual institutional mechanisms of audit, performance
review, standards of service, and evaluation and outcome measurement. A
further challenge flows from inconsistency in the understanding of AO practice and lack of clarity, as well as resistance to the practice and systemic
change by those working in child welfare. Moreover, the body of evidence
required to identify specific promising AO practices and measure their
effects has yet to be fully developed, or even described. To recognise AO
practice in principle as necessary and justified seems highly obvious (Strega
andCarriere, 2009;Dumbrill, 2003), butthere is limited knowledge regarding
which AO practices are the most effective. At present, the Roundtable is the
only existing mechanism to communicate or even make suggestions about
what is possible by way of AO practice evolution.
TheRoundtable itself comprisesfront lineworkers, supervisors, human resource specialists, training and development managers, and a few individuals
occupying more senior positions. Discourse around the table has at times
reflected practitioners’ ‘painfully fragmented identities and alienation from
the multiple performances demanded by audit cultures’ (Aronson and
Smith, 2011, p. 435). For example, managers are expected to carry out the
social control functions set by Ministry mandates, and are viewed as carrying
the efficiency ethos because their role is flexible and self-directed in meeting
such expectations. In doing so, however, the demands of working in such
efficiency-focused and managerialist cultures also affects their thoughts,
emotions and bodies in that they build up resistance and anger towards a
system that is frequently unfair to service users (Aronson and Smith, 2011;
Thomas and Davies, 2005). Aronson and Smith (2011, p. 435) characterise
such resistance as ‘an internally contradictory process in which colonisation
and liberation, subversion and collaboration are all embedded’.
The Roundtable remains a grassroots initiative, and does not have any
formal designation within the system. If a more formalised relationship
were to be created with the system’s Local Directors, those in positions of
power would be accountable for implementing measurable AO changes
within the system. Instead, the Roundtable benefits from the bottom-up
energy which often energises such progressive movements, including mobilising opinion and support to raise specific issues as a priority on the
An AO Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario, Canada 481
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
system’s agenda. The Roundtable has the flexibility to meet changing conditions more easily and quickly than more established, formalised mechanisms
could do. In this process, we see a great capacity to motivate, self-educate and
leverage the intellectual and emotional capital of the collective movement,
without having to rely on established structures and resources (Tuominen,
2012).
Despite these challenges, and enabled by these benefits, members have
been effective in achieving a considerable amount of output with very few
resources over a relatively short period of time. To date, they have produced
and accomplished the following:
(1) a discussion paper and presentationtotheExecutiveSectionofthe Ontario
Association of Children’s Aid Societies in 2008;
(2) a two-day educational session for senior leaders and decision makers delivered across all five provincial regions in 2009 and 2010;
(3) a two-day in-service workshop for front line staff and supervisors introducing AOP, offered annually since 2008 in many agencies, and a subsequent
agency readiness guide to support the introduction of this workshop;
(4) a provincial consultation and subsequent development of a Framework for
Anti-Oppression Child Welfare in Ontario, now adopted by the Local
Directors Group for use by provincial agencies; and
(5) a provincial symposium for child welfare practitioners, held in 2012, that
focused exclusively on AOP in child welfare.
Notwithstanding all these examples of internal influences on the child
welfare system, it remains to be seen whether these activities and achievements, which are directed at both micro- and macro-level activities, attitudes
and practices, will result in improved anti-oppressive outcomes. Nevertheless, the documents and the relationship-building created in the process
have helped practitioners to engage in a sustained and critical selfexamination of shortcomings in child welfare practice. By keeping the
Roundtable alive, hope remains that AO work will continue and evolve in
this area.
What is an anti-oppression framework?
According to Dominelli (2002, p. 6), anti-oppression is ‘a methodology focusing on both process and outcome, and a way of structuring relationships
between individuals that aims to empower users by reducing the negative
effects of hierarchy in their immediate interaction and the work they do’.
The implementation ofAOpracticeon aday-to-day level,therefore, requires
a tool that looks at the ways in which organisational processes create social
relationships that may result in unintended inequalities. For example,
many Children’s Aid Societies conduct training and education sessions
482 June Ying Yee et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
for managers, front line workers and staff in order to try to disrupt, challenge
and transform social relationships that are oppressive and exclusionary. The
limit of this type of training is its primary focus on attitudinal change and
micro-level practices within the scope of workers’ discretionary activities.
Wide-scale organisational and structural changes do not occur since many
are unable to see or understand what needs to be changed at the core. Children’s Aid Societies are organisations that have ‘a socio-political system in
which people act together under an imposed structure and ideology and
use a specific set of technologies to achieve a specific objective’ (Henry
et al., 2010, p. 305). Risk assessment models, which are scientifically based
to reduce the liability of child welfare agencies by identifying cases of
neglectandabuse,aredesignedtobeusedbyagenciestopreciselyandobjectively identify, measure and justify their actions. Yet, according to Strega and
Carriere (2009):
. . . anti-racist and anti-oppressive approaches to child welfare practice
require us to understand differences between ourselves and those we work
with not as technical challenges that can be made through the understanding
of the ‘other’ but as fundamentally related to our power and positionality
(Strega and Carriere, 2009, p. 15).
Before we can begin to examine these micro-level practices, anti-oppressive
social work in child welfare must dig deeper into transforming the policies
and processes of the organisation at a structural level.
From a broad, organisational level, any Children’s Aid Society can review
its entire strategic plan from an anti-oppressive perspective. This would
require a commitment from the executive director and senior management
to consider and address various outcome measures related to issues of disparity and disproportionality. One cannot begin to formulate such outcomes
until the institutional processes and systems are thoroughly examined. For
example, if there are inequitable systems and processes that are contributing
to particular outcomesthat re-entrench systemic inequalities inthe waysthey
impact individuals and families, then the AO framework for child welfare
could be applied to not only ask those questions, but also to build an operational plan that would answer those questions and, in turn, hold everyone
in the agency accountable for producing different results. It is important to
note that disparity and disproportionality are not the only kind of outcome
measures that can be identified. For example, availability of support services
to particular communities could also be an outcome measure.
Developing and applying an anti-oppression framework
Purpose and methodology
During 2009 and 2010,the consultants led a consultationprocesswith 109 participants from forty-four (of fifty) Children’s Aid Societies, including the
An AO Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario, Canada 483
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies. Practitioners at all levels,
from front line staff, and management to Executive Directors participated
in small focus group discussions. Specifically, they were asked:
What would need to change in the following areas to reflect anti-oppression
principles? (1) leadership and accountability, (2) learning and development,
(3) human resource practices, (4) supervision, (5) communication, (6) service
and program delivery, (7) community partnerships, and (8) feedback and
complaints.
Questions were asked about these areas because they were deemed to be
‘sites of change’—that is, formal and informal institutional processes and
mechanisms that could be altered as levers to support AO outcomes. The
answers to such questions contributed to the development of an antioppressive framework that could structure and organise workplace practices
in a participatory, collaborative manner, with an explicit focus on achieving
anti-oppressive processes and outcomes.
The Ontario child welfare system is organised by six provincial zones: (i)
Central; (ii) Grand River; (iii) South West; (iv) Eastern; (v) North; and (vi)
North East, along with the provincial umbrella association known as the
Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies. Two-hour consultation sessionswere held in each ofthese zones andfacilitatedbytwo rotating members
from the Roundtable. Invitation flyers were widely distributed via e-mail list
servs andothernetworksusedbymembers oftheRoundtable.Zone directors
actively encouraged involvement. Front line staff and managers of the
various Children’s Aid Societies were invited to participate, as were
leaders in child welfare, including Executive Directors, Human Resource
Directors, and Directors of Services. In total, thirteen focus group sessions
were held, with a separate session provided for child welfare leaders.
The Tri-Council Policy Statement on ‘Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans’, which guides the ethical conduct of academic researchers
in Canada, states in Article 2.5 that:
Quality assurance and quality improvement studies, program evaluation activities, and performance reviews, or testing within normal educational
requirements when used exclusively for assessment, management or improvement purposes, do not constitute research for the purposes of this
Policy, and do not fall within the scope of REB review (Canadian Institutes,
2010, p. 20).
In this case, the consultation process used to inform the development of an
AO framework, funded by the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, was considered to be an internal organisation report. As a result,
informed consent was not required or obtained from participants, since:
. . . those activities [such as management or improvement purposes] are normally administered in the ordinary course of the operation of an organization
where participation is required, for example, as a condition of employment in
484 June Ying Yee et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
the case of staff performance reviews, or an evaluation in the course of
academic or professional training (Canadian Institutes, 2010, p. 20).
During the consultation process, detailed notes were taken by a Roundtable
volunteer who documented comments anonymously. The data from the consultation process were themed and collated. No identifying information on
specific individuals was collected. Themes which reached saturation were
used to help inform the development of the AO framework.
Limitations of the methodology
Although every effort was made to solicit a wide variety of representation via
e-mail, networks, invitations from zone directors and other usual communication venues, the input was limited to the views of those who participated. In
addition, the input did not address specific AO practice or targets for change,
but focused on what an AO framework would look like and how it could be
implemented and sustained within the participants’ own organisational
culture.
The framework’s eight steps
The consultants incorporated the results of the consultation in their design of
an AO framework (see Figure 1), which consists of eight main steps that can
be used bi-directionally to recognise the importance of process and reflection
within anti-oppressive organisational change work (Wong and Yee, 2010).
The AO framework is designed to recognise the interrelationship between
process and outcome. The first four steps consist of the organisational
change process; they assist the organisation to acknowledge, identify and
challenge relational hierarchies. This stage also provides a collaborative
framework to focus on particular areas for the purpose of creating open
and honest discussions within the agency and to identify the kinds of
practices, policies, processes and systems that need to be changed to
achieve anti-oppressive outcomes. Steps 5–8 guide users in the expression
of a logic model which holds agencies accountable to anti-oppressive outcomes and opens up opportunities to envision how anti-oppressive outcomes
that address disparity and disproportionality can be achieved (Wong and
Yee, 2010).
The following is a brief example of how the AO framework (Wong and
Yee, 2010) can be implemented. Of course, each agency is unique and may
apply the framework differently to suit its purposes. Step 1 is to ‘Identify
the Intended Outcome’. An agency’s intended outcome may be ‘To have
anti-oppression as a guiding value in agencypractices, policies andprocesses’.
Step 2 is to ‘Identify Potential Key Challenges to Reach Outcomes’.
An AO Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario, Canada 485
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
Figure 1 The Anti-Oppression Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario diagram The anti-oppression
framework combines an organisational change process (Steps 1–4) with a logic model (Steps 5
through 8) in the service of change toward greater equity. It consists of eight main steps that can be
used bi-directionally to recognise the importance of process and reflection within anti-oppressive
organisational change work. Steps 1–4 consist of the organisational change process; they assist the
organisation to acknowledge, identify and challenge relational hierarchies. Step 1 is to ‘Identify the
Intended Outcome’. Step 2 is to ‘Identify Potential Key Challenges to Reach Outcomes’. Step 3 is to
‘Ask Yourself/Team Questions’. Step 4 is to ‘Identify Levers’. Steps 5–8 guide the users in the
expression of a logic model which holds agencies accountable to anti-oppressive outcomes. Step 5 is
to ‘Revisit Outcomes/Assess Impact to Users’. Step 6 is to ‘Shift Institutional Challenges into AO
Opportunities’. Step 7 is to ‘Identify Individual/Group and Institutional/Systemic Action Steps’.
Step 8 is to ‘Identify Indicators (Measures of Success)’. Source: Wong, H. and Yee, J. Y. (2010) An
486 June Ying Yee et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
Examples of some main challenges are: (i) the agency staff, managers and
board are unable to challenge their own power and privilege working in
child welfare; (ii) management does not have the ability to lead or supervise
staff from an anti-oppressive perspective; (iii) many at the agency have the
attitude that AO is an ‘add on’ to existing practice, and thus do not see it as
a priority; (iv) many at the agency believe that they are already engaged in
AOP, yet are sometimes oppressive in their use of language or their behaviour;or (v)the agency cannot acknowledgethe current institutionalprocesses
that create inequitableoutcomesfor marginalised children in care. Step 3 isto
‘AskYourself/Team Questions’that challenge the status quo. These kinds of
questions are meant to stimulate dialogue and confront core issues preventing AO outcomes. Examples are: What kind of training or supervision can be
provided to staff and managers to better equip them to challenge dominant
values? What mechanisms can make the agency accountable for antioppressive outcomes? Step 4 is to ‘Identify Levers’ in the major areas (e.g.
communication, supervision, human resources) of the organisation. Levers
are processes and structures that support institutional change toward your
intended outcome, along with identifying who is accountable for the
change and what role that person may play in the change. Examples of identifying levers include: implementing a training model that allows for managers to provide leadership in anti-oppression, or documenting AO
progress as an agency on a quarterly basis. Step 5 allows one to pause and
‘Revisit Outcomes/Assess Impact to Users’. It allows the agency to reflect
on whether particular outcomes need to be modified and whether the proposed changes will positively benefit service users. Step 6 is to ‘Shift Institutional Challenges into AO Opportunities’. In essence, it tackles the
challenges identified in Step 3 and re-envisions possibilities towards antioppressive change. An example of this is to recognise leaders that practice
AO and ensure opportunities for them to be promoted within the organisation. Step 7 is to ‘Identify Individual, Group and Institutional/Systemic
Action Steps’. This part emphasises that, for every individual-level AOP,
there must be a related group and institutional step in order to ensure antioppressive change is systemic. An example of this is shown in Table 1.
The last step is to ‘Identify Indicators (Measures of Success)’. An example
of this is: all agency staff can articulate how AO is a part of the agency’s practice, policies and processes (Wong and Yee, 2010).
Anti-Oppression Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario, Toronto, Canada, Anti-Oppression
Roundtable for Child Welfare in Ontario, Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies. The
diagram is reproduced with the kind permission of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid
Societies (OACAS); it was developed for, and originally appeared in, a report entitled An
Anti-Oppression Framework for Child Welfare, written by H. Wong and J. Yee in 2010, and is
available online at www.oacas.org/pubs/external/antioppressive.pdf
An AO Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario, Canada 487
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
As illustrated above, the framework provides a guide on how to begin this
work. Overall, the AO framework combines an organisational change
process (Steps 1–4) with a logic model (Steps 5–8) in the service of change
towards greater equity (Wong and Yee, 2010). The AO framework (Wong
and Yee, 2010) provides the stepping stone and structure for an agency to
engage in open, yet focused discussions on the underlying issues, and on
core challenges that serve as barriers to achieving anti-oppressive outcomes
to address disproportionality and disparity. Perhaps more importantly, it provides the structure to shift challenges into anti-oppressive opportunities.
Lastly, it holds everyone at the agency accountable for anti-oppressive outcomes in order that institution-wide change can occur.
Why is an anti-oppression framework important?
Child welfare agencies and researchers are fully aware of the statistics on disproportionality—that is, the overrepresentation of racialised minorities (e.g.
African American and American Indian children in the United States, and
black children and First Nations in Canada) in the child welfare system compared to white/Anglo children, and the differential outcomes for children of
racialised backgrounds compared to white/Anglo children, even when all
other variables are taken into consideration (Busch et al., 2008; Clark et al.,
2008; Dettlaff and Rycraft, 2008, 2010; James et al., 2008). While the evidence
of these patterns is not in dispute by child welfare agencies and researchers,
there is no consensus on the causes of these outcomes (Shahsiah et al., 2012).
The causes are complex and contradictory, but, until steps are taken at an organisational leveltobegintodocument the processes thatmaylead toabetter
understanding of the relationship between the institutional processes and
outcomes of an agency’s mandate and its strategic plan, the problem will continue to elude us.
Moreimportantly,agrowing, emergingliteratureattests tothepossibilities
of making inroads towards institutional change. Broadhurst, Hall, Wastell,
White and Pithouse (2010, p. 1046) argue that, although ‘social work practitioners are obliged to comply with risk reduction technologies, informal processes continue to play a role in shaping decisions and actions in this
relationship-based profession’. Similarly, Aronson and Smith (2010) argue
for the need to identify the constraints and opportunities that can occur in
Table 1 Example of potential actions (Step 7) at the individual, group and institutional levels
Individual Group Institutional
All agency staff are expected
to demonstrate antioppression skills
Demonstration of anti-oppressive
practice is a discussion item in all
team and supervision meetings
Anti-oppressive practice is a
criterion in all agency
performance reviews
488 June Ying Yee et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
local sites, thus suggesting that more research is required to investigate the
potential for progressive change that can be made within organisational cultures. If organisations are not conscious and explicit about their intentions
and self-critical of their processes and outcomes, then, by default, they will
reproduce the unintended outcome of exclusionary practices. While opportunities for institutional change exist, they are hampered by the broad
policy context, what Healy (2002) describes as a post-industrial environment
whereby welfare state agencies are financially rewarded for their productivity and economic efficiency, rather than for their progress toward meeting
social justice imperatives such as reduction of poverty, racism and other
inequalities.
Challenges to implementing the anti-oppression
framework
Given that child welfare agencies are non-profit agencies that are mandated
and funded by the welfare state, accountability to the public is paramount.
Consequently, the reporting mechanisms used to account for spending
make the use of evaluation tools mandatory. The evaluation tools used in
child welfare agencies, such as risk assessment and intake assessment, are
modernist tools. Similarly, all child welfare agencies have a strategic plan
that states their vision, activities and the processes used to achieve particular
outcomes. The purpose of AOP is to find and change the ways in which the
systems, processes and practices of the child welfare system fail to provide
services in a manner that meets clients’ unique needs, fairly and equitably.
This is challenging to realise in the context of both managerialism and modernism. Brown (2012, p. 39) remarks on the ambivalence ortension that exists
in AO discourse, between postmodern relativism and its rejection of the
notion of objective knowledge and the necessity to act by declaring a specific
direction and objective: ‘. . . to tak[e] a stance which may sometimes involve
the modernist ingredient of adopting a unifying vision; for example, the
notion of social justice or anti-oppression itself’.
The stance taken in this paper is to argue for the use of an anti-oppressive
framework, despite its adoption of a modernist notion of social justice which
may be considered a ‘tool of the master’. Audre Lorde (1984) famously commented that the ‘master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house’;
however, we argue that, until we are able to apply the ‘master’s tools’ for progressive change and see the fluidity and possibilities that rest with them, child
welfare practice will continue its oppressive practice of unintentionally reinforcing existing inequalities for families who come into contact with the
child welfare system. This stance aligns with the position of Hick, Fook and
Pozzuto (2005, p. xi), who state that ‘the goal of critical social work is to
An AO Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario, Canada 489
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
identify the multiple possibilities of the present in order to contribute to the
creation of a more just and satisfying social world’.
AO and AOP emerged in the late 1990s as a foundational curricular basis
for schools of social work in Canada (Baines, 2011; Hick et al., 2005; Yee and
Wagner, 2012). Since then, our critique and knowledge of what is individually, culturally and systemically wrong with the child welfare system have
grown significantly, but mainly at the theoretical level. The promise of the
AO framework is to put theory into practice—that is, provide a tool that
can be applied at the individual, cultural and systemic level (Henry et al.,
2010). Certainly, doing so will require critical self-reflective practice and educational training on what is privilege and oppression. The AO framework basically provides a vehicle by which to identify, document and track the impact
of practices that can shift from reproducing inequity to increasing equity in a
transparent and collaborative manner with all those working in the organisation. It is not enough to identify what is oppression anecdotally; agencies
require a tool that enables them to examine not only their processes, but
also their outcomes in a systematic and documented way. By implementing
the AO framework, organisations commit to documenting the practices
that work or do not work. And use of the framework can grant legitimacy
and justification to those who are keen on providing a unifying and enabling
process that can demonstrate measurable activities and results that would
hold all stakeholders, especially senior management, accountable for their
practices. Until we begin this work, we may never know what is possible at
the institutional level.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like tothankthe provincial Anti-OppressionRoundtable,
the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS) and the Provincial Local Directors Group’s Project Management Committee for recommending funding for the Consultation, and all of those who, despite the
significant demands of their work within the child welfare system, took
timeto participate. Fundingforthe initial development ofthe AOframework
discussed in this article was provided by the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS).
References
Aronson, J. and Smith, K. (2010) ‘Managing restructured social services: Expanding the
social?’, British Journal of Social Work, 40(20), pp. 530–47.
Aronson, J. and Smith, K. (2011) ‘Identity work and critical social service management:
Balancing on a tightrope?’, British Journal of Social Work, 41(3), pp. 432–48.
490 June Ying Yee et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
Baines, D. (ed.) (2011) Doing Anti-Oppressive Practice: Social Justice Social Work,
Halifax, Canada, Fernwood Publishing.
Baskin, C. (2011) Strong Helpers’ Teachings: The Value of Indigenous Knowledges in the
Helping Professions, Toronto, Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Broadhurst, K., Hall, C., Wastell, D., White, S. and Pithouse, A. (2010) ‘Risk, instrumentalism and the humane project in social work: Identifying the informal logics of
risk management in Children’s Statutory Services’, British Journal of Social Work,
40, pp. 1046–64.
Brown, C. G. (2012) ‘Anti-oppression through a postmodern lens: Dismantling the
master’s conceptual tools in discursive social work practice’, Critical Social Work,
13(1), pp. 34–65.
Busch, M.,Wall, J. R.,Koch, S.M. and Anderson, C. (2008) ‘Addressing the disproportionate representation of children of color: A collaborative community approach’, Child
Welfare, 87(2), pp. 255–78.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
(2010), Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving
Humans, December.
Carriere, J. and Sinclair, R. (2009) ‘Considerations for cultural planning and Indigenous
adoptions’, in S. Strega and J. Carriere (eds), Walking this Path Together: Anti-Racist
and Anti-Oppressive Child Welfare Practice, Halifax, Canada, Fernwood Publishing.
Clark, P., Buchanan, J. and Legters, L. (2008) ‘Taking action on racial disproportionality
in the child welfare system’, Child Welfare, 87(2), pp. 319–34.
Dettlaff, A. J. and Rycraft, J. R. (2008) ‘Deconstructing disproportionality: Views from
multiple community stakeholders’, Child Welfare, 87(2), pp. 37–58.
Dettlaff, A. J. and Rycraft, J. R. (2010) ‘Factors contributing to disproportionality in the
child welfare system: Views from the legal community’, Social Work, 55(3), pp. 213–24.
Dominelli, L. (2002) ‘Anti-oppressive practice in context’, in R. Adams, L. Dominelli
and M. Payne (eds), Social Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates, New York,
NY, Palgrave.
Dumbrill, G. C. (2003) ‘Child welfare: AOP’s nemesis?’, in W. Shera (ed.), Emerging
Perspectives on Anti-Oppression Practice, Toronto, Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Dumbrill,G.C. (ed.) (2005)ChildWelfare inOntario:Developing aCollaborative Intervention Model, Toronto, Canada, Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies.
Dumbrill, G. C. (2006) ‘Ontario’s child welfare transformation: Another swing of the pendulum?’, Canadian Social Work Review, 23(1–2), pp. 5–19.
Duncan, L. (2004) The Welfare of Children, 2nd edn, New York, NY, Oxford University
Press.
Grant, L. and Ojo, K. (eds) (2008) Anti-Oppression in Child Welfare: Laying the Foundation
for Change: A Discussion Paper, Toronto, Canada, The Child Welfare Anti-Oppression
Roundtable, available online at www.oacas.org/pubs/external/antioppressionpaper09
may06.pdf.
Green, J. and Thomas, R. (2009) ‘Children in the centre: Indigenous perspectives on antioppressive child welfare practice’, in S. Strega and J. Carriere (eds), Walking this Path
Together: Anti-Racist and Anti-Oppressive Child Welfare Practice, Halifax, Canada,
Fernwood Publishing.
Healy, K. (2002) ‘Managing human services in a market environment: What role for social
workers?’, British Journal of Social Work, 32, pp. 527–40.
An AO Framework for Child Welfare in Ontario, Canada 491
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023
Henry, F., Tator, C. and Rees, T. (2010) The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian
Society, 4th edn, Toronto, Canada, Nelson Education.
Hick, S., Fook, J. and Pozzuto, R. (eds) (2005) Critical Social Work, Toronto, Thompson
Educational Publishing.
James, J., Green, D., Rodriguez, C. and Fong, R. (2008) ‘Addressing disproportionality
through Undoing Racism, leadership development, and community engagement’,
Child Welfare, 87(2), pp. 279–96.
Lorde, A. (1984) Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches, Berkeley, CA, The Crossing Press.
Mullaly, B. (2010) Challenging Oppression and Confronting Privilege, 2nd edn, Toronto,
Canada, Oxford University Press.
Shahsiah, S., Yee, J. Y. and Wong, H. (2012) Towards Anti-Oppressive Organizational
Change:AReviewofLiterature onDisproportionality andDisparity andOrganizational
Change, Toronto, Canada, Peel Children’s Aid Society of Ontario.
Sinclair, R. (2009) Wı ´cihitowin: Aboriginal Social Work in Canada, Halifax, Canada,
Fernwood Publishing.
Sinclair, R. (2010) ‘Introduction to special Indigenous issue’, Critical Social Work,
11(1), available online at http://www1.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/introduction-tospecial-indigenous-edition.
Stein, T. (2001) The Cult of Efficiency, Toronto, Canada, Anansi.
Strega, S. and Carriere, J. (eds) (2009) Walking this Path Together: Anti-Racist and AntiOppressive Child Welfare Practice, Halifax, Canada, Fernwood Publishing.
Thomas, R. and Davies, A. (2005) ‘Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New public
management and managerial identities in the UK public services’, Organization
Studies, 26(5), pp. 683–706.
Tsui, M. and Cheung, F. (2004) ‘Gone with the wind: The impacts of managerialism on
human services’, British Journal of Social Work, 34(3), pp. 437–42.
Tuominen, M. C. (2012) ‘Speaking and organizing across differences: The multiracial,
grassroots mobilization of child care workers’, Feminist Formations, 24(1), pp. 26–48.
Wong, H. and Yee, J. Y. (2010) An Anti-Oppression Framework for Child Welfare
in Ontario, Toronto, Canada, Anti-Oppression Roundtable for Child Welfare in
Ontario, Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, available online at http://
www.oacas.org/pubs/external/antioppresssive.pdf.
Yee, J. Y. andWagner, A. (2012) ‘Is anti-oppression teaching in Canadian schools of social
work a form of neo-liberalism?’, Social Work Education, 32(3), pp. 331–48.
492 June Ying Yee et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/45/2/474/1679194 by Flinders University user on 26 March 2023