Which residential school sites have confirmed identifications of remains and what steps are being taken for repatriation and memorialization?

1. What has been confirmed so far: very few individual identifications

The clearest, documented case of completed repatriation described in the reporting is an Indigenous-led U.S. effort: the Rosebud Sioux Tribe conducted a multi-year campaign that resulted in the return of nine children after exhumation, anthropological analysis and agreement with families and authorities, offering a rare model of identification and repatriation in practice ^[5]. By contrast, high-profile Canadian sites such as the former Kamloops Indian Residential School (where 215 anomalies were announced) and Marieval/Cowessess (reported in media counts like “751 unmarked graves”) have primarily reported ground-penetrating radar (GPR) anomalies or potential graves; those signals indicate likely burial features but do not, by themselves, confirm human remains or identify individuals ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Why confirmed identifications are rare: technical, ethical and legal constraints

GPR and archival research can point communities to likely burial locations, but GPR cannot prove the presence of human remains or establish identity; exhumation, osteological analysis and DNA comparison are required for positive identification, and those steps involve complex forensic, cultural and legal processes that communities must authorize and guide ^{[6] [3] [7]}. Sources emphasize that identification and repatriation proceed “along a continuum” — from archival research and non‑invasive fieldwork to, only with community consent, excavation, scientific analysis and possible repatriation — underscoring that confirmation is deliberately cautious and community-led ^{[3] [8]}.

3. Community-led protocols, federal funding and institutional roles

The Government of Canada has established the Residential Schools Missing Children Community Support Fund to finance survivor-centric, community-led research, fieldwork, memorialization and, when families wish it, physical identification and repatriation of remains, with program guidelines outlining eligible activities including archival work, GPR surveys, memorial projects and culturally governed field protocols ^{[3] [8] [9]}. The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and smaller community project funds have supported planning, archival retrieval and ground exploration, while legal and technical guidance—such as repatriation handbooks and forensic overviews—exist to guide communities through exhumation and identification processes ^{[10] [7]}.

4. Models and disputes: precedent, successes and contested searches

The Rosebud example supplies a concrete model: community outreach to families, requests to authorities for exhumation, employment of anthropologists and negotiated repatriation of identifiable children ^[5]. Yet searches in Canada have produced contested results: investigative teams and some dioceses have funded or conducted surveys that produced lists of “potential” or “likely” graves, and some excavations (for example, a church basement dig referenced in coverage) have found no human remains, demonstrating both the limits of detection methods and the potential for divergent interpretations among researchers, communities and institutions ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Toward a national framework: legal protections, survivor leadership and reparations

An Independent Special Interlocutor conducted consultations and submitted recommendations for a federal legal framework to identify, protect and preserve unmarked graves and burial sites, calling for Indigenous-led processes, sustained funding, coordination across jurisdictions and reparations to families; the federal government has signalled commitment to work with Indigenous peoples on implementing those recommendations and to align with UNDRIP principles ^{[4] [11] [12]}. Reporting notes substantial, though incomplete, funding commitments and the need for long-term supports—because repatriation, scientific identification and memorialization require sustained, culturally appropriate resources and legal clarity ^{[9] [6]}.

6. What remains unknown or unresolved

Publicly available reporting shows many GPR‑identified anomalies and community counts of “potential” graves, but it also shows that confirmed, scientific identification and formal repatriation remain relatively uncommon and are proceeding slowly under community direction; sources do not provide a comprehensive list of all sites where remains have been scientifically identified and repatriated in Canada beyond the procedural examples and the U.S. Rosebud case, and the scale of work ahead is emphasized by federal program descriptions and interlocutor recommendations ^{[5] [3] [4]}.