The territory’s Child and Youth Advocate Office released its terms of reference for a systemic review of government-run group homes Friday.

The office was asked by the Yukon government to conduct an independent review of government-run group homes.

Annette King is the advocate, and told the Star today a bulk of her work will rely on dialogue with First Nations youth and government.

She noted that many of the children who occupy these homes are members of First Nations, and the report needs to address that allegations of mistreatment have been a long-standing issue.

“Ideally, we want to make sure this is a culturally relevant and meaningful systemic review that creates significant change,” King said.

The terms of reference add that the report is “to provide meaningful advice to the Department of Health and Social Services that advances the interest and well-being of Yukon children and youth in Group Homes.”

It continues that among those being interviewed will be past and present youth in homes, policy-makers and contractors within the Department of Health and Social Services, and caseworkers and group home staff who are in direct contact with youth.

“Kids have been living in group homes for a long time,” King said, implying the report is a long time coming. “Now all of a sudden, there’s public attention to what is our daily business.”

That’s thanks in part to the efforts of CBC reporter Nancy Thomson, who has detailed allegations of mistreatment in group homes made by youth over the last couple of months.

“The public cares, the public is noticing what we’ve been noticing,” King added.

Also involved in the allegations was a government whistleblower who alleged mistreatment in some homes. That employee has now gone on to pursue legal action against the government after he was dismissed.

Meanwhile, the president of the Yukon Employees’ Union said he feels his members may be somewhat unfairly targeted, based on the details released.

Steve Geick told the Star Friday afternoon that he is happy that the report is being done, but is worried about the practical result it may have come next year.

“We’ve brought things forward before that tend to show there’s more going on there than meets the eye,” he said.

Geick said he fears the report may end up pointing to “a scapegoat” in group home staff rather than try to change the culture – which he says a systemic review should address.

“One of the things we’ve been saying all along is you need to look into the culture of the management and why these things are happening,” he noted.

“In my history with the people within that organization,” said Geick of the department, “we have no faith that it will be anything but trying to look for a scapegoat.”

Geick has been a vocal critic of the process since the Yukon government asked the advocate in March to conduct the report.

He clarified that it’s not because he sees the advocate as inept or lacking skills, but the lack of legislative teeth that governs the office.

He points to section 3 of the terms of reference, which states that the report is to provide meaningful advice to the department.

“I’m not questioning the ability of the child advocate office, but there’s nothing that obligates the government to follow that advice,” he said, adding that leaves him “a little weary.”

The Child and Youth Advocate Act, which governs King and the office, lists the primary role of the advocate as one that “supports, assists, informs and advises” children and youth.

In the case of addressing a policy or systemic issue of public interest, the act says that “the advocate may review and provide advice in respect of the issue to the department.”

After the release of a systemic report, the advocate can make a “request to be advised of steps taken.”

That is, after King provides advice to the department, she can follow up about “the steps that have been taken or are proposed to be taken … or if no steps have been or are proposed to be taken, the reasons for not following the advice.”

That’s made Geick skeptical of the process, as he fears the independence of the office may be jeopardized.

“I think that if the children’s advocate is going to look into things within the department, and HSS are behind promoting it, they need to take a deeper look,” he said, hoping the department remains “transparent” throughout the process.

King insists her office is independent, pointing to the very report itself.

“One of the limitations is that public reporting,” King said. “It’s important that we are able to report it publicly because that creates some of that independence,” she said. “We’re not doing it for the department, this is an independent review.”

King confirmed that she is hoping to sit down with Geick in the coming months, but insisted that her priority remains the kids and their interests.

“Anyone who has any concerns about the report, I want to hear from them,” she said.

“But in terms of this review and its focus, it is about children and their experiences,” she noted, adding, “I’m not here to uphold the rights of workers or any other” parties.

The terms show that the report’s scope will cover children and youth who have gone through the system between April 2015 and March 2018.

King admitted that while looking back further would be helpful, there is a sense of urgency as youth begin to age out of care.

“A lot of times, long reviews can be really meaningful,” she said, “but these kids are growing up so we need to get out the advice.”

She did add, though, that she expects other issues to arise from the report in a year’s time – which may be addressed by her office and other advocacy organizations.

King added that the review is a priority for her office. It’s expected to be released in March 2019.