Indian Child Welfare Act Research Articles

Building Cultural Competence in the Child Welfare Workforce: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

Cultural competence training has been suggested as one way to help address the over-representation of children of color in the child welfare system. This article describes findings from a mixed-methods study of specialized training in cultural competence knowledge, attitudes, and skills for experienced caseworkers in public child welfare. Results indicate training participants had statistically significant increases in knowledge across all topic areas related to cultural competence. Of particular note is the increase in participant knowledge of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related changes in working with families and individuals.

Shared decision‐making: a voice for the Lakota people

ABSTRACTChild welfare has long been a concern for American Indians, so much so that Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in 1978. The ICWA was intended to address was the large number of children placed out of home as a result of abuse and/or neglect, and the corresponding lack of tribal and community input regarding their removal and placement. This paper focuses on one group of American Indian people, the Lakota, whose children are overrepresented in the child welfare system. As a promising practice, shared decision‐making will be offered as a culturally appropriate model to build dialogue and cooperation between social workers and their Lakota clients. Shared decision‐making holds promise to help address the important social justice issues identified by Congress and by the Lakota people in the 1970s and which remain largely unresolved some 40 years later.

American Indian Grand Families: A Qualitative Study Conducted with Grandmothers and Grandfathers Who Provide Sole Care for Their Grandchildren

A qualitative study was conducted to determine the rationale for 31 American Indian grandparents' who provide sole care of their grandchildren, the impact of historical trauma on their decision making process in accessing services, the value of American Indian Child Welfare policies in addressing care issues, and custody status of the grand families. Indian Outreach Workers, Community Health Representatives, Elder Program Directors, and tribal community leaders were key in the recruitment of participants. The grandparents were informed of the purpose of the study and participated in face-to-face, paper and pencil, individual interviews. The subjects included 29 grandmothers and two grandfathers; age 43-86 years, with 20 who lived off reservation land and 11 who lived on reservation land in Michigan. A phenomenological approach of the "world of the lived experience" informed the design of the study. The researchers recorded the subjects' responses via field notes, conducted a comparison of responses to assess internal reliability, and entered the responses into the qualitative data analysis Nvivo program. Findings included; (1) reasons for providing sole care of grandchildren (2) stressors and rewards of providing sole care (3) grandparents decisions affected by historical traumas which focused on the boarding school issues and the removal of children from their homes due to cultural differences causing a reluctance to seek and access national and state programs (4) grandparents preference was to seek and access services provided by their Tribal Nations, and/or American Indian urban agencies (5) most lacked legal custodial status which is an indicator the grandparents' may have benefited from knowledge of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

Indian Children and Termination of Parental Rights: Michigan Supreme Court Takes a Step in the Right Direction in <I>In Re Lee</I>

The Michigan Supreme Court has made its fi rst major foray into the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal law that mandates minimum federal standards in child protection cases involving Indian children, which means more rigorous preventive measures and higher standards of evidentiary proof.1 Although Cheryl Lee ultimately lost her parental rights, the Supreme Court interpreted ICWA in a manner that protects Indian families. The Lee Court clarifi ed the intersection of ICWA and Michigan law, particularly in cases in which termination of parental rights is based on prior terminations.

Contemporary Hurdles in the Application of the Indian Child Welfare Act

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Susan Waszak; Contemporary Hurdles in the Application of the Indian Child Welfare Act. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 1 January 2010; 34 (1): 121–135. doi: https://doi.org/10.17953/aicr.34.1.c0618t4x32272205 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest Search

The Cherokee Conundrum: California Courts and the Indian Child Welfare Act

This article was prepared for presentation at the American Indian Identity Conference held at Michigan State University, October 16-17, 2008. After classifying a year of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) cases in state courts, it became apparent that California had both the highest number of ICWA cases and that most of these cases were because of noncompliance with the notice provision of ICWA. In addition, it became clear that the majority of California cases involved parents claiming Cherokee affiliation. This article concludes there could be many reasons for this, including an informal exercise of the Existing Indian Family doctrine at the social worker level.

Comment: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished Under Iowa's ICWA Legislation

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) provides that States may apply their own standards of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian of an Indian child if those state standards grant greater protections than those embodied in federal ICWA standards. However, in both instances where states have departed from the Federal norms, both Iowa and Oregon have seen substantive state law pre-empted by the supposed operation of Federal law. This short paper is a brief analysis of only the most recent setback to state-level ICWA legislation, In re A.W./S.W. issued by the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa.

Contemporary Policy Challenges for Indian Child Welfare

ABSTRACT The federal policy context of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) has changed over thtitle last 25 years. We examine ways in which four recent federal policies may challenge or alter ICWA outcomes. Our discussion of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 highlights the reemerging risk of poverty for more American Indian families. This may increase the removal rate of Indian children due to perceived child neglect. The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 and the Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 present challenges to ICWA by ignoring both the rationale and protections of ICWA. In contrast, the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 explicitly exempts Indian children in recognition of ICWA goals and rationale. Yet noncompliance with this exemption may undermine the intent of ICWA.

An empirical examination of the Indian Child Welfare Act and its impact on cultural and familial preservation for American Indian children

Objective: Cultural and familial ties are crucial for the overall well-being of children. Extant research and permanency planning practices support the reunification of children with their families when possible. In 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted to promote cultural and familial preservation for Indian children, but sparse empirical research has examined the implementation and outcomes associated with this landmark legislation. This article examines the relationship between compliance with ICWA in one Southwestern state and the rate of reunification of Indian children with family or tribal members following out-of-home placement. Method: Public child protection records were reviewed for 49 ICWA-eligible children who were placed in alternate care. Data were collected on compliance with placement type, use of qualified expert witnesses, and incorporation of Indian culture and resources. Additionally, 78 state caseworkers and 16 tribal workers were surveyed regarding knowledge and attitudes about three areas of compliance. Results: Case record reviews indicated that the majority (83%) of Indian children were placed according to preferences outlined by ICWA. Almost all cases included a court finding that active efforts were applied to prevent family breakup. While state workers reported limited understanding of many ICWA's requirements, both state and tribal workers reported a high level of state-tribal cooperation in working with Indian families and children. Conclusions: Results of this study point to two major patterns of findings: (1) individual case record reviews suggest compliance with ICWA; and (2) differences exist in knowledge and perceptions of ICWA by state and tribal workers. Furthermore, state child protection systems should follow the American Indian lead in further emphasizing cultural and familial ties for children. Highlighting such ties acknowledges the importance of reunification and cultural and familial preservation to enable children to have a clear sense of tradition and belonging. Evidence indicates that compliance with ICWA promotes better outcomes through reunification.

Adoption of American Indian Children: Implications for implementing the Indian Child Welfare and Adoption and Safe Families Acts

Two significant federal child welfare policies, The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) are largely unreconciled as existing services under the ICWA do not appear to emphasize permanency to the extent that ASFA requires. This study describes the pre-ASFA adoption patterns of American Indian children in California and provides the first analysis of the likelihood, type, and timing of adoption for American Indian children. The cohort was comprised of children who were less than 6 years old (n = 38,430) when they entered foster care. Kinship adoption was higher for American Indian/Alaskan Native children than most other children and was especially likely to be done by aunts and uncles rather than grandparents. However, the rate at which American Indian/Alaskan Native children remain in non-kinship foster care is substantially higher for Caucasian or Latino children. Policy and program implications are considered.

The State and the American Indian: Who Gets the Indian Child?

In 1978 Congress enacted one of the most sweeping statutes in the field of Indian law, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Prior to the ICWA, cases involving Indian children were resolved within the general framework of Indian law principles governing civil jurisdiction; that is, when all contacts were within Indian Country, tribal jurisdiction was exclusive, and when there were few reservation contacts, state courts possessed jurisdiction.' This dominance of judge-made principles was altered by the ICWA, whose underlying premise was that Indian tribes as sovereign governments have a vital interest in any decision as to whether Indian children should be separated from their families. Upon enacting the ICWA, Congress declared that

The Indian Child Welfare Act in the Face of Extinction

In 1978, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA),1 giving tribal courts exclusive jurisdiction over the adoption of Native American children.2 It took Congress many years to promulgate this Act.3 Since passage, many have criticized the ICWA for failing to protect Indian children. In light of forty high-profile controversial adoptions,4 the House of Representatives in May 1996 passed the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act,5 which significantly affected the welfare of the ICWA. Since the House passed the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act without informing the Indian tribes or tribal court representatives, Rep. Don Young (R.-Alaska) proposed to strike Title DI of the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act. Title DI authorized interracial adoptions and significantly limited the tribal court's control over interracial adoptions by shortening the time period in which the tribe or a family member could contest the proceeding, and determined that the ICWA applied to a child based upon the child's percentage of Indian blood as a criteria.6 Before the House of Representatives sent the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act to the United States Senate, various tribal leaders met in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to discuss the dramatic effects this Act would have on Indian children. Most importantly, the tribal leaders drafted changes to the 1978 version of the ICWA in order to find

The Effectiveness of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978

Since the 1970s, federal policy has emphasized the preservation of Indian land, culture, tribes, and families through self-determination legislation to empower and enhance culturally unique tribal communities. The 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) extended tribal self-determination policy to include child welfare and family preservation issues as a response to the large numbers of Indian children removed from their families and placed in non-Indian settings. We analyze available data to assess the effectiveness of tribes in meeting the ICWA mandate through 1986. The results indicate tentative support for effectiveness of the act in reducing adoption and foster care placement rates for Indian children.