Absolutely. There has been a massive system of improvement in the U.S. based on outcomes, measures, and incentives, so it's a much more coherent policy framework. But the U.S. has two concepts. One is there's a duty to protect children from abuse and maltreatment, but it also comes with a duty to support families where you know there are known intergenerational issues. If there's deep poverty, if there's an issue where you have a particular segment of the population that's experiencing deep challenges, you have an obligation to look at the presenting problems and work on them.
If you look at the U.S., there's very significant work being done, for instance in domestic violence, saying when there's domestic violence, you don't punish the mothers by removing the children, therefore placing them into greater vulnerability and despair. You actually support the mothers to adequately respond to domestic violence by actually creating safety and supports for them and their children.
The U.S. jurisdictions have done much stronger work around the duty to support families in crisis. For first nations families in Canada, they've really been so far outside even the nominal supports that are in provincial systems that they've taken the brunt, largely, of removals, hence they're very hostile often to the child welfare system. But at the same time we have serious maltreatment of children, and girls in particular. We're only going to crack that if we actually make a stronger investment in support, and support that works and is based on evidence.