Mosquito Advocacy: Change Promotion Strategies for Small Groups with Big Ideas

Chapter fourteen Mosquito Advocacy: Change Promotion Strategies for Small Groups with Big Ideas

First Nations children are dramatically over-represented in the Canadian child welfare system, and there is significant documentation that inequities in child welfare funding on reserves are a contributing factor. Traditional public policy change strategies were tried for over a decade, but Canada failed to implement solutions jointly developed with First Nations, or to fully implement recommendations made by the Auditor General of Canada. First Nations children and their families continued to suffer, and there was little hope that continued discussions with Canada would yield substantive progress. In two thousand seven, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada (the Caring Society, a small four-person organization working for First Nations children) and the Assembly of First Nations filed a human rights case against the Canadian Government alleging that long-standing funding inequities in child welfare amounted to racial discrimination against First Nations children. When the case was filed, about twenty supporters attended a news conference. Five years later, court rooms were overrun with people coming to watch the case, over ten thousand people and organizations from across the world were following the case online, and thousands of Canadian children were marching on Canadian legislatures and parliament demanding equity. The success was achieved through the development, implementation, and refinement of mosquito advocacy. Mosquito advocacy was developed at the Caring Society because of the urgent need for holistic peaceful public policy tools that equip small groups to effectively take on the big guys (in this case government) to advocate for evidence-based policy in change-resistant environments. Although existing literature provided some guidance on individual strategies and considerations, there was no comprehensive road map for advancing public policy with resistant colonial-based governments.

Amongst First Nations, the tiny mosquito has a legendary ability to tackle larger animals and people. The mosquito advocacy approach leverages evidence-based solutions grounded in peaceful First Nations values, and is inspired by the following mosquito-like characteristics: one, small and agile; two, goal oriented; three, infectious; four, buzzing; five, swarming; and six, biting (using peaceful non-voluntary change techniques). This chapter begins by describing the need for peaceful alternatives to the "talking with government" approach to public policy, before describing how long-standing inequities in First

Nations child welfare led to the development of the mosquito advocacy approach. The next section addresses how peaceful values, proper risk assessment, and evidence-based public policy solutions shape mosquito advocacy strategies and implementation. Finally, implications for mosquito advocacy in other sectors and movements are discussed.

The Emergence of Mosquito Advocacy

Flawed and inequitable federal government policies are at the headwaters of systemic poverty, poor housing, and inequitable service access on First Nations reserves, undermining the safety and well-being of children. While other groups are also influenced by government agendas, First Nations are more deeply pressured because of the Canadian government's central role in colonialism, the Indian Act, funding and regulation of First Nations communities, and troubled treaty and self-government relationships.

Restrictions placed on First Nations child and family service agencies by the Federal Government contribute to how these multiple pressures affect First Nations citizens. First Nations child and family service agencies provide child welfare services to children, young people, and families residing on First Nations reserves. The federal government exercises control over the agencies by, amongst other requirements, obliging the agencies to follow provincial/territorial child welfare laws in lieu of traditional forms of governance. The federal government provides funding to First Nations child and family service agencies while provincial/ territorial governments fund the same services off reserves.

Research indicates that First Nations child and family service agencies serve a higher-needs population with inequitable funding from the federal government. The Auditor General of Canada estimates that First Nations children are six to eight times more likely to be placed in child welfare care than other children. The factors contributing to the dramatic over-representation are poverty, poor housing, and substance misuse. There are promising culturally based solutions available to mediate these factors, but First Nations child and family service agencies are constrained by provincial/territorial laws and inequitable and flawed federal government funding regimes.

For over ten years, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), the national political organization representing First Nations in Canada, worked with the federal government to document inequities in child and family services funding on reserves and to propose solutions, but the federal government failed to implement the needed changes. As talks continued between AFN and the federal government, Canada's own data showed that the numbers of First Nations children going into care between nineteen ninety-five and two thousand one rose a shocking seventy-one point five percent. By two thousand six, it was clear to First Nations that talking with the government in the absence of meaningful, measurable progress at the community level had devastating implications for children. In response, change strategies were developed that go beyond relying on the federal government's voluntary change motivation. I term these peaceful strategies "non-voluntary advocacy." A new era of First Nations child rights activism was about to emerge; this activism moved from the negotiating table with the government to public education, public engagement, and the Courts. The consequences for the Assembly of First Nations and the Caring Society would be vast. A key question facing both organizations was how they could effectively explore non-voluntary advocacy options with Canada's federal government and still operate. Most First Nations and national First Nations organizations are small scale, and many receive the majority of their funding from the federal government. At the time, this was certainly the case for the Assembly of First Nations. The Caring Society had a more diversified funding base, but still received federal funding. Implementing non-voluntary advocacy would test the limits of what both organizations were prepared to risk for the people they served, and the willingness of a democratically elected government to fund evidence-based dissent.

As a political organization, the Assembly of First Nations utilized political and legal processes to advance the complaint. As a non-political co-complainant, the Caring Society needed effective and peaceful non-voluntary advocacy options suited for this particular change context: one, a small organization tackling a large and powerful one; two, a largely misinformed public and Parliament whose views of First Nations are influenced by colonialism; and three, probable funding cuts from governments who disagreed with our approaches could mean resource constraints or even closure of the Caring Society. A review of the literature on social movements, public policy, and activism revealed inspirational ideas, but no road map. Innovation was required. The mosquito emerged as a premium example of where something very small, but enthusiastic, effectively challenges large and resistant entities. Mosquitoes are goal orientated, infectious, and persistent. They swarm and come from all directions, and some will bite, leaving a welt that itches for days as a lasting reminder of its presence. Experimentation with these strategies, and consultation with leading First Nations and non-Aboriginal advocates, emboldened the Caring Society to apply mosquito advocacy, and led to its application across disciplines to address inequities in education and health. The following section describes mosquito advocacy in action, using the funding inequities in First Nations child and family services as a case study.