What We Heard
Indigenous Youth Voices on Indigenous Identity
Why is IYR Developing an Indigenous Identity Verification Process?
In order to be accountable to Indigenous youth and ensure the safety and integrity of our programming spaces, IYR is in the early stages of developing an Indigenous Identity Verification Process. We understand that Indigenous identity fraud is harmful to Indigenous youth and communities and undermines self-determination. We are building a process that protects our spaces, while ensuring that the process is accessible and respectful to anyone who is required to verify their identity. This process will apply to all Indigenous youth participants and to staff who identify as Indigenous. The development of the process will be guided by the voices of Indigenous youth, community, and staff.
Before beginning to develop a draft process, we conducted youth engagements to ensure that what we develop reflects the identities and diverse experiences of Indigenous youth. As highlighted further below, we initially held one engagement session at IYR’s Gathering in Whitehorse in Summer 2025, and based on what we heard from youth there, facilitated five additional online sessions to capture diverse youth experiences in more depth. Throughout every step of this process, we are prioritizing centering the voices of Indigenous youth with the goal of creating a process that is accessible and respectful to our participants and Indigenous staff.
Process Development Timeline
Currently, the development of IYR’s Indigenous Identity Verification Process consists of 5 overarching phases. As of January 2026, we are in the Indigenous Youth Engagement phase as we have formed an Advisory Circle to help guide the process. We anticipate having the pilot launched in mid 2026-27. The timeline of development is as follows and is subject to change:
Phase 1: Process Scoping
Research & environmental scan on processes that already exist (ongoing throughout entire process)
Summary of environmental scan findings (ongoing throughout entire process)
Development of initial engagement questions
Phase 2: Indigenous Youth Engagement
Initial youth engagement at IYR’s Gathering in Whitehorse
Distinctions-based online sharing circles
Development of Advisory Circle
Draft of What We Heard report
Phase 3: Draft Approach and Feedback
Draft recommended approach
Internal engagement
Initial Advisory Circle review
Adjusted draft approach
Phase 4: Review and Final Draft
Board and legal review & adjustments
External engagement: select organizational partners & participants
Adjusted draft approach following external review
Final Advisory Circle and internal review
Final draft completed
Phase 5: Pilot Launch and Ongoing Review
Pilot Process launched
Evaluation & Adjustment of Process
Adjustment & relaunch
Ongoing/yearly review
Overall Engagement Demographics
Outlined below is a high-level demographic summary of youth who participated in the Gathering session, online engagements, and/or filled out the survey when not able to attend an online engagement.
Across all engagements, there were a total of 52 unique participants. Fourteen of the participants of the Gathering session were also present at an online engagement, filled out the survey or participated in an interview, some participants are reflected here twice. Additionally, Afro-Indigenous participants are counted alongside their other Indigenous identities, as well as within the count of AfroIndigenous participants.
Rooted in Responsibility: In-Person Indigenous Youth Engagement at IYR’s Gathering
At IYR’s annual youth Gathering in Whitehorse, CIPR held an initial engagement session to understand their experiences and perspectives on Indigenous identity verification processes. The session was by invite only, to ensure a range of demographics were represented in participants. The session was facilitated by CIPR staff, with Grandma Isabelle supporting as an Elder, and two mental health supports present.
Information gathered through the ongoing environmental scan helped inform the development of the session questions, including adapting similar questions used in other engagement processes by post-secondary institutions. CIPR staff also added questions we felt would best support drawing out insights specific to designing a process for an organization, and the full list of questions from this engagement can be found in Appendix A.
I wouldn’t have wanted to find my way back home if it wasn’t for these types of spaces.
- Youth Participant “ ”
Opening the Circle: Defining Community Connection & Pride
After an opening by Grandma Isabelle, youth eased into the conversation by talking about what makes them feel proud and connected to their communities as Indigenous people. The responses given were varied and highly specific: youth talked about the feeling of meeting family members unexpectedly while away from home, the importance of intergenerational sharing and learning from both Elders and children, and the comfort of hearing an accent they associate with their communities, especially while away from home. One youth spoke about finding those relations as reminders of the ways in which we are rooted to home no matter where we are, and another spoke about how much pride they feel when meeting youth from other parts of Inuit Nunangat.
Youth also spoke to feeling a sense of pride and connection when the Indigeneity of others is visible or audible out in the world, as well as when they see the distinct artistic style of their nation outside of their community. Ceremonial spaces and activities – such as hunting, fishing, berry-picking, being on the land, and language learning- were also cited as important connection points, as participants spoke to the connection possible through practicing culture and seeing others do the same.
- Youth Participant “ ”
The web of kinship and connection [among Inuit] makes me proud.
There was strong consensus among the group that gathering in and with community is what strengthens and energizes community. For this very reason, youth who have had to undergo a reconnecting journey described how it can be harder for them to tap into that crucial sense of pride and connection. Laying out all these tangible and intangible facets of community set the groundwork for a thoughtful conversation about how IYR’s Indigenous Identity Verification Process can reflect and honour community connection in all its forms.
Part 1: Past Experiences
Asked whether they have ever needed to verify their Indigenous identity for a job, school, funding, or program before, everyone participating in our circle indicated that they had. On this question, youth were more concerned with key opportunities where they should have been asked to verify but weren’t because the employer/school/service provider did not have a process in place. One Inuk youth spoke about having lost out on opportunities because of known falsifiers. Youth agreed that a tick box for self-identifying does not feel secure enough in an age where people are taking advantage of such processes to access spaces, services, and money meant for Indigenous people.
Some specific instances where youth have been asked to verify their Indigeneity include:
Post-secondary applications; Scholarships, bursaries, loans (such as OSAP); When identifying as Indigenous in applying for a job at an Indigenous organization; When applying for grants for Indigenous people.
“ ” Being Inuk, we are all selfgoverning nations – if we don’t have a government, we have a land claims agreement [...] There are more key moments where I should have been asked to verify.
- Youth Participant
While youth were in agreement that verification processes are crucial and should exist, many shared frustrating experiences with inflexible, inaccessible, or discriminatory processes. One youth who has a parent who was part of the Sixties Scoop talked about not being able to access funding for school due to not having a status card. While some organizations or agencies will ask for a band office letter, many youth who don’t have status noted that they either couldn’t do this or that their band office didn’t have capacity to respond to such requests.
One youth also talked about the many distinct bureaucratic complications related to being from an amalgamated nation that has since been split up, and how those complications have created barriers for them and their children. Some Afro-Indigenous youth in the circle also spoke to the complexity of being connected to their urban Indigenous community but not necessarily to their reserve and felt that not recognizing the urban Indigenous community as a valid one is exclusionary.
Key Considerations:
Flexibility
Simplicity
Accessibility
Generally speaking, youth didn’t necessarily feel that being asked to verify identity or community connection would be a barrier to applying for an opportunity in itself, though if the process is very cumbersome and the opportunity holds only mild interest, they might skip it as a result of the added layer. Some youth did note that they had skipped applying for opportunities because of not knowing how and where the personal information from their status card would be stored and expressed feeling protective over it. One youth from Nunavut noted that lack of tech access and tech literacy in the North strongly impacts Inuit youth’s ability to scan and send documents which can create challenges in meeting the requirements of such processes.
As a non-status person, one youth spoke to a process where there was a specific form for people who don’t have status, with space to explain their connection, and felt that this was both fair and respectful. A Métis youth spoke about going through a Michif schooling program and having to prove three generations of identity. Inuit youth spoke about accessing services by an organization in Halifax that provided a list of possible options as viable proof, including family tree and a Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) card, and said that they liked how broad the list was.
Throughout this part of the discussion, it quickly became clear that youth were asked for different kinds of proof of their identity depending on whether they were First Nations, Métis, Inuit, status, and/or non-status. Though youth described having a range of positive and negative experiences with identity verification processes, they were generally in support of such processes in practice.
Blood quantum is a colonial system that exists to get rid of us.
- Youth Participant
They articulated that the process IYR is developing should be flexible to encompass many ways of being connected to community and should not be burdensome in terms of asking for more sensitive personal information than is necessary.
Part 2: Building Something Better
When talking to youth about what a respectful, inclusive, accessible process should look like, youth emphasized the importance of being mindful of the capacity of applicants. Several youth also suggested finding a way to keep track of those who have already been through the process so that no one has to duplicate it needlessly, while also being mindful of data privacy and responsible storage practices. At the same time, youth reasserted that for those who do not have status, citizenship, or a beneficiary card, being able to acquire documentation to back up their Indigeneity can be a difficult and burdensome process. Earlier in the session, another youth noted that the system of asking for letters from band offices could also lead to fraudulent letters. Generally speaking, youth felt that any process developed should be mindful of this and allow for varied forms of substantiation that go beyond legal documentation (such as being able to explain your connection to community).
In speaking about whether the process should be the same for both participants and staff, one youth argued that IYR’s duty to protect spaces for youth means that staff should be held to a higher standard. They felt that some grace should be given to youth who may not have access to certain ways of proving their Indigeneity, while staff who are self-identifying should be required to meet set standards.
IYR has a duty to protect the space by verifying the staff who are coming into the space. For youth more space can be made for understanding that they might not have access to all of these things, but for staff there should be accountability.
-
Youth
Participant (Paraphrased)
For many youth, feeling comfortable about who is reviewing their information and where that information is stored is integral to these processes. Youth were generally in agreement that IYR staff reviewing applications for program participation or staff positions should be representative of the range of identities that Indigenous people hold. Having Afro-Indigenous, on-reserve, urban, and non-status representation on the review team, in addition to First Nations, Métis and Inuit representation, is integral to Indigenous youth feeling comfortable going through these processes. Additionally, ensuring that IYR is adhering to principles of Indigenous data sovereignty and security is important for youth – Indigenous youth want to know that their information is being held in a secure way and only stored for as long as necessary.
Of fundamental importance, youth emphasized the need to use language rooted in care and belonging when naming and talking about the process, noting that the word “verification” can be triggering or be a barrier for some folks, and suggesting something like “community affirmation” or “community belonging” in its place.
Key Takeaways & Next Steps
The initial conversation at the Gathering not only gave space for youth to share their insights on Indigenous identity verification processes in concept, but it also gave us crucial direction on what kind of further engagement work needed to happen before IYR begins drafting a recommended approach. Based on this important initial conversation, we decided to hold distinctions-based online sharing circles to gain a deeper understanding of how community connection is and could be articulated among and between First Nation, Métis, Inuit, and Afro-Indigenous peoples. From the initial circle, we pulled the following themes and takeaways as foundational priorities to this process:
1.Inclusion & Flexibility: Creating a process that respects youth capacity; using inclusive language; having the option to scale the depth of the process to the size of opportunity; establishing many ways to substantiate connection.
2.Distinctions-Based Substantiation Processes: Certain ways of substantiating identity may be appropriate for some communities but inappropriate for others; underscoring the need for a flexible process and requiring us to gather more information and to ensure we are constantly learning.
3.Internal Processes: Including staff training; ensuring diverse representation on application review committees (across First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and Afro-Indigenous identities); considering supports and resources for applicants; creating clear, kind, and comprehensive follow-up steps for instances where someone does not clear the process; and ensuring the overall process is reviewed every two to three years.
4.Data Sovereignty: Youth also emphasized the importance of transparency and integrity around who will have access to the data they are providing; where that information will be stored; and what happens to it if their application is not successful.
Online Sharing Circles & Surveys
As mentioned above, after the session held at The Gathering, we held five distinctions-based online circles for Indigenous youth to ensure we were capturing as many diverse experiences as possible. Youth who participated in the session at The Gathering were invited to attend one of these sessions, as well as recent participants in CIPR programming, recent grantees, and Advisory Circle/Committee members. Each online session had an Elder, Knowledge Keeper, or Indigenous support person present. The sessions were held throughout September 2025 and facilitated by CIPR staff.
The questions asked at these engagements were similar to the questions at the Gathering session, but were edited to be more succinct and to have less overlap, as we found during the in-person session that youth answered some of these questions organically. The questions asked in the survey, online engagements, and interview sessions can be found in Appendix B.
After the circles wrapped up, youth who registered for a sharing circle but were unable to attend were offered the opportunity to either fill out a survey with the sharing circle questions or participate in a 1-on-1 interview (no participants chose the interview option).
Part 1: Past Experiences
Across all five online engagements, almost all youth had been asked at some point to provide verification of their Indigenous identities for a job, program participation, or grant. When asked via Zoom poll, in the First Nations, Métis and Inuit sharing circles, 100% of youth participants responded that they had been asked to verify their Indigenous identity, compared to 86% of the participants in the Afro-Indigenous circle and 73% in the All Demographics circle. In describing what these processes asked them for, most youth said they had been asked to provide documentation like a status, enrollment or citizenship card.
One Métis youth shared that when applying for a program with another nonprofit, they asked to share about their identity, connection to community, and their family names, and then substantiate those claims however they chose, and said they appreciated the openness of this mode of substantiation. In the Métis sharing circle, multiple youth had also been asked to provide their genealogy before and emphasized the importance of family names to Métis communities and connection.
In the Inuit sharing circle, youth shared their frustrations with a lack of knowledge surrounding Inuit-specific forms of identification (specifically the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. or NTI card) and emphasized the need for staff to be trained to be familiar with these. For some of the Inuit youth in the sharing circle, having to explain what their identification is to non-Inuit people has been burdensome. Additionally, some Inuit youth brought up that when you turn 19, you must reapply for your NTI card, creating an additional barrier around providing substantiating documentation.
I feel like it's surprising to me when people don’t understand … I had people asking me to explain about
- Youth Participant (Paraphrased)
Youth also made it clear that these processes are often burdensome and frustrating if you do not have a status, citizenship or beneficiary card. Many shared about how difficult it can be to connect with community offices and wait times for letters from them can be very long. Additionally, the wait time to receive an identification card after applying can be lengthy, with one youth pointing out that they waited 13 years for their status card.
Many non-status First Nations youth described being able to provide a long form birth certificate and a parent’s status card to substantiate their Indigenous identity. For some, there was a significant barrier in being able to acquire a long form birth certificate or their parents’ status card, especially if they or their parent(s) were ever in the child welfare system. Across all demographics, the effects of the child welfare system, residential schools, and the restrictions of the Indian Act greatly impact youths’ abilities to acquire documentation to verify their Indigeneity in a timely and accessible way.
Forms of identification youth have used to verify their Indigenous identity:
Status cards (their own and/or their parents)
Long form birth certificates
Citizenship cards
Beneficiary cards
Genealogical information and/or family names
Regardless of the potential barriers faced, most youth in the online engagements continued to say that being asked to provide substantiation for their Indigeneity would not stop them from applying to a program, grant, or job.
Part 2: Exploring Options
Youth described a range of ways someone could affirm their connection to community and Indigeneity without showing a status, enrollment, or citizenship card. In the online engagements, some of these ways were discussed across all of them, including:
A letter from your community office;
A reference letter from someone in community; Openly explaining your connection to community, including family names (“Who are your grandparents?”); Verified genealogy, particularly relevant for Métis youth/potential staff (such as from the St. Boniface Historical Society, as an example);
Status card of a parent and a long form birth certificate for non-status First Nations youth/potential staff
Across the online engagements, youth often expressed that although a card should not be the only way to back up your Indigeneity, it should always be an option. Youth brought up frequently that providing either just a card or a registration letter should be enough. This is to recognize different levels of connection to community as well as the time and capacity needed to explain family connection and to obtain community letters or references.
When asked if youth participants and staff should be asked to provide the same level of verification, responses were mixed. Many felt as though staff should need to complete a more in-depth process, while some felt the same standard should apply to everyone. When asked in a Zoom poll if they felt the verification should differ or be the same between youth and staff, responses were mixed across the circles:
Youth were mixed on whether participants and staff should have to verify in the same way.
First Nations and Inuit sharing circles: more youth felt it should be the same (First Nations Circle: 56%, Inuit Circle: 67%)
Métis, Afro-Indigenous, and All Demographics circles: more youth felt it should be different (Métis Circle: 50%, Afro-Indigenous Circle: 56%, All Demographics Circle: 55%)
Many youth in each circle also weren’t sure about how they felt (First Nations Circle: 22%, Inuit Circle: 17%, Métis Circle: 38%, Afro-Indigenous Circle: 19%, All Demographics Circle: 9%)
When talking about why they answered the way they did, many youth who said the process should be different cited the need to ensure the safety of youth participants, the salaries staff receive, and taking an opportunity to work for IYR generally, as reasons to hold staff to a higher standard. Many participants also talked about the need to allow youth to get things wrong and that we should understand that some youth are coming into our spaces as a way to connect to community. Some of the youth who said the process should be the same said that space is still being taken up, regardless of if it is as a participant or as staff, with one youth also pointing out that IYR administers large grants, and provides honorariums, which makes the stakes of program participation similar to a staff position.
We also asked youth if they felt programs with a greater honorarium or funding amount and/or a longer length should require more in-depth substantiation. When we asked youth this in a Zoom poll, responses were again mixed. In the First Nations, Métis, and All Demographics circles, more youth said it should be the same (56%, 55% and 55%, respectively). In the Inuit circle, the responses were split exactly 50/50. In the Afro-Indigenous circle, more youth said it should be different (56%). When further discussing this issue, a few youth across the engagements brought up that rather than the requirements being different, there should be some opportunities that do not require verification and some that do.
In multiple sharing circles, youth talked about how they may feel like it was a barrier to submit substantiation for something with a small or no honorarium, or for something short like a panel discussion or sharing circle. In discussing this, some youth also brought up how requiring different levels of substantiation for different programs may create unfavorable situations when youth “pass” a less rigorous process, but not a more in-depth process.
If it’s based on financials, like a grant or funding opportunity, then yes, verification may be required. But if it’s just someone trying to attend, connect, or find community, they’re not receiving any monetary gain so they shouldn’t be asked for proof at all. Community spaces should be about belonging, not bureaucracy.
- Youth Participant
Part 3: Building Something Better
When asked what would make this process feel supportive and accessible to them, youth often reaffirmed the need to have a wide variety of ways to substantiate Indigeneity that respects their individual communities’ and nations’ rights to determine their own members. In the Inuit sharing circle, one youth mentioned needing to take direction from Inuit people themselves on which communities are generally accepted as being Inuit. Additionally, in the Métis sharing circle, one youth discussed the need to not get immersed in the infighting that happens between Indigenous governments around identity and citizenship, but to focus on the connection someone holds to the community.
Some youth also reiterated that they would like to see the option of explaining your community connection included in the process, with one youth mentioning that being able to explain this verbally would help make it more accessible.
“ ”
One thing that an organization I work with in the North did that I really like - applications are verbal. This could be good and decolonial instead of doing an online form. It honours oral traditions and helps overcome a possible education and technology barrier and goes beyond paper and pen.
- Youth Participant
Another aspect that youth asserted as a need to feel safe in this process was data sovereignty and security, alongside the need to store the individual results of the process to ensure youth do not have to go through it more than once when applying to take part in various programs across the organization.
Many youth have concerns around who is looking at their data, where it is being stored, and about potentially having to provide the information repeatedly to access our programs. Youth want to see their data stored securely, so there is no need for them to resend documentation when applying for different programs in the future.
[Having a candidate profile and account] is more respectful of people's time because they don’t want to share their whole life story for their identity. Sometimes, you don’t have the time or memory, so having clarity on how information is being used is important, especially the [legal] identification side of it.
-
Youth Participant
Additionally, some youth talked about the need to ensure care in the way someone is being told they did not “pass” the verification process, and to provide supports and resources for those in this situation. Some youth suggested a tip sheet style document provided to those who do not make it through this process, helping them to seek support in their journey to (re)connection and/or obtaining documentation.
Throughout the sharing circles, in many ways, youth expressed that this process itself is something that is necessary to ensure the safety and integrity of IYR’s spaces and that generally, youth are very supportive of this process being incorporated into our programs and hiring processes. Additionally, many youth shared they would like to see the process continue including the voices of Indigenous youth in the review process to ensure ongoing engagement. Many youth also said that they already feel empowered and accepted in IYR’s spaces and appreciate the work we are doing to keep our programs feeling this way.
Recommendations & Next Steps
CIPR is grateful to the youth who took the experiences, feelings, and insights on this person conversation at the Gathering thr based sharing circles, we heard consensu building IYR’s version of an Indigenous Id this includes consensus on the general ne process should be flexible and inclusive, with us needs to be stored securely. Thes the takeaways identified in the previous s into recommendations to support in shap
1.Honouring Self-Determination
a.The process must respect the rights communities and nations to determi their own membership, rather than s to define or regulate Indigeneity. Thi means taking direction from commu themselves on what is considered sufficient verification of Indigeneity.
2.Inclusiveness & Accessibility
a.The process must use inclusive langu g g g y, connection, and in the name of the process itself (including avoiding words like “verification”)
b.In recognition of how identity substantiation can and should look different across identities and to respond to the impacts of colonialism on community connection and disconnection, the process should include many different ways to establish and substantiate Indigeneity outside of legal documentation.
c.Honouring oral traditions, youth should have the option to verify through a conversation with IYR staff instead of through documents/written submissions where necessary for accessibility.
3.Time & Capacity
a.To respect youth’s capacity, the process should be administratively streamlined and as straightforward as possible, asking only for what is totally necessary
b.Youth should only need to clear the process once;
c.In developing the process, staff and the Advisory Circle should explore and discuss scaling the depth of the process to the size of opportunity and/or identifying which opportunities require applicants to clear the process and which do not.
4.Strengthening Internal Processes & Supports
a.Staff who are responsible for vetting the information gathered from youth must receive comprehensive and ongoing training on how to interpret the information;
b.As much as possible, IYR must ensure diverse representation on application review committees (across First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and Afro-Indigenous identities);
c.Staff and Advisory Circle should consider what supports and resources could be provided for applicants moving through the process (such as a tipsheet on how to acquire certain documents);
d.IYR should develop clear, kind, and comprehensive follow-up steps for instances where someone does no resources on further developing co identity and encouraging them to a e.IYR should ensure the overall proc
5.Data Sovereignty
a.The process should ensure that on necessary data is stored, be transp about where the data is stored and how long, and about who will have access to the data they are providi
As we have wrapped up the youth engagements for this process, the next steps in the process include:
Draft Recommended Approach: CIPR will next begin developing a draft recommended approach for the process which will be ready in Winter 2026.
Staff and External Engagements: After drafting the recommended approach, there will be various opportunities for engagement and review by the Advisory Circle, IYR’s Board of Directors, and IYR staff. CIPR will host engagements for staff to provide feedback on the process. Following this, we will identify a select group of external partners who will be invited to share their feedback on the process.
As of February 2026, we are moving through Phase 3, as we have formed the Advisory Circle for this process. In moving through the next phases, we are committed to building a process that is guided by Indigenous youth voices and that truly reflects their diverse experiences and identities.
We look forward to engaging further with all staff and external partners on this important topic and welcome any questions on this process that anyone may have. You can direct your questions to CIPR at:
Megan Lewis, Director of the Centre for Indigenous Policy and Research
megan@indigenousyouthroots.ca
Kim Wakeford, Associate Director of the Centre for Indigenous Policy and Research kimwakeford@indigenousyouthroots.ca
Tija Hauta, Research Manager, Centre for Indigenous Policy and Research tija@indigenousyouthroots.ca
MA’NA
MA’NA
WOLIWON
TIAWENHK
HIY HIY
LIM-LIMT
NAQUMIKMANDAANG
QUIJANAQQUTIT
MASI CHOK
MARSI
THANK YOU
TIAWENHK NAKUMIK
Appendices Appendix A - Gathering Session Questions
Opening Question
1.When you think about being part of an Indigenous community, what is something that makes you feel proud and connected?
Part 1: Past Experiences
1.Have you ever been asked to verify your Indigenous identity for something like a job, school, funding, or program participation before? If so, what were you asked to provide? You do not need to share the name of where or who unless you would like to.
2.If you have been asked, how did it feel to go through that process? Did you feel respected in how you were asked, or by what you were asked to provide? Why or why not?
a.If you have not been asked before, what would make you feel comfortable being asked?
3.Would being asked to verify your Indigenous identity ever stop you from applying for a program, grant, or job?
a.What might make it feel hard to apply, or like a barrier? (i.e. time, requirement of documents, unclear process, specifics needs of community connection)?
Part 2: Exploring Options
1.Some identity processes ask for documentation, like a status card or citizenship card. Others might ask you to show a connection to community instead, or both. What are some ways you think someone could show connection to community?
a.How do you think different levels of connection to community should be acknowledged in the process? How should the experiences of someone who is reconnecting, or was adopted, or part of the millennial scoop, be honoured in a process like this?
2.Do you think staff and youth participants should be asked for the same kind of identity verification, or should it be different? Why or why not?
3. What about different types of programs?
a.For program participants, should the same process apply to everything, or should it change depending on the purpose and length of the program – or funding/honourariums involved? (For example - IYR has a Creation granting program which provides funding to Indigenous youth-led community projects. We also have longer term policy programming like our 9-month long Indigenous Youth Policy School that includes honourariums. We also have some shorter term/one-off opportunities, like workshops and sharing circles that can come with a smaller honorarium (and shorter time commitment).
Part 3: Building Something Better
1.As we are in the early stages of exploring a process here, what would make it feel respectful, safe, and accessible to you? Are there things we should avoid?
2.How would you feel specifically about Indigenous Youth Roots having a procedure for this?
3.Who do you think should be involved in reviewing or making decisions about Indigenous identity in programs like this?
a.Would having a process for reviewing the procedure regularly help you to feel confident in the process? Why or why not?
Closing Question
1.Is there anything else you would like to share? They could be thoughts, hopes, or concerns about this topic that we have not covered yet. We will also stick around if anyone would like to connect with us individually.
Appendix B – Online Session & Survey Questions
Opening Question
1.When you think about being part of an Indigenous community, what is something that makes you feel proud and connected? You can speak about being a part of a(n) (Indigenous identity specific to circle) community specifically or about being a part of an Indigenous community broadly (placebased or otherwise).
Part 1: Past Experiences
1.Have you ever been asked to verify your Indigenous identity for something like a job, school, funding, or program participation before?
a.If so, what were you asked to provide? Were any of the requirements a barrier for you? Why or why not? You do not need to share the name of where or who unless you would like to.
2.Would being asked to verify your Indigenous identity ever stop you from applying for a program, grant, or job?
a.What might make it feel hard to apply, or like a barrier? (i.e. time, requirement of documents, unclear process, specifics needs of community connection)?
Part 2: Exploring Options
1.Some identity processes ask for documentation, like a status card or citizenship card. Others might ask you to show a connection to community instead, or both. What are some ways you think someone could show connection to community?
a.How do you think different levels of connection to community should be acknowledged in the process? How should the experiences of someone who is reconnecting, or was adopted, or part of the millennial scoop, be honoured in a process like this?
2.Do you think staff and youth participants should be asked for the same kind of identity verification, or should it be different? Why or why not?
3.Should programs of greater length and with different honorarium amounts ask for more in-depth verification?
Part 3: Building Something Better
1.When it comes to developing a process that reflects and respects [demographic identity of the circle], is there anything specific we should know and keep in mind?
2.As we are in the early stages of exploring a process here, what would make it feel respectful, safe, and accessible to you? What kinds of practices do you think we should avoid?
Closing Question
1.Is there anything else you would like to share? They could be thoughts, hopes, or concerns about this topic that we have not covered yet. You can also send us an email with your thoughts after, or if you would like, we can set up a oneon-one Zoom or phone chat if there’s more you’d like to share outside of this space.
What We Heard Indigenous Youth Voices
on Indigenous Identity
Verification Processes