A DARK PIECE IN AMERICA’S SUBCONSCIOUS: NATIVE CHILDREN IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

THERE IS A TENDENCY FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RESORT TO DEFAULT BEHAVIOR WHEN DEALING WITH NATIVE AMERICANS.  BEHAVIOR THAT IS ROOTED IN ATTEMPTED CULTURAL GENOCIDE THROUGH FORCED ASSIMILATION.

When we talk about disparity, we mean the unequal treatment of a racial or ethnic minority in comparison to a non-minority by child welfare workers and by the child welfare system as a whole. This can be observed in many forms during the process of interaction, and includes key decision points (e.g., reporting, investigation, foster care placement, and exit), which are required for treatment, services, or resources. Research shows children of color in foster care and their families are treated differently from white children and their families in the system. Approximately 60 percent of children living in foster care are children of color.  Within this group, American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) children are grossly overrepresented.  Despite the fact that American Indian children represent only one percent of the child population they make-up two percent in foster care (Jones, 2015).  Roberts (2002), states that if one holds no prior preconceptions about the purpose of the child welfare system, one would definitely conclude that it is an institution designed to monitor, regulate, and punish poor families of color.

The traditional argument regarding the reasons as to why this occurs and is easily accepted fall in line with standard perceptions of Native American culture (Crofoot & Harris, 2012).  Namely, that social ills are disproportionately rampant throughout Indian country. The assumption that this myth is true makes it easier to justify the removal of Indian children at an epidemic rate. Terry Cross, the former director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) defined the child welfare perspective when he described as a myth the school of thought that poverty, substance abuse, and welfare system create a greater need and bring a great number of children of color into the child welfare system. (Crofoot & Harris, 2012).  However, the fact is that the “myth” does not withstand close examination.Even if we were to concede that for some reason American Indian/Alaskan Native communities were in fact more vulnerable to the conditions attributed to it, the fact remains, that in 1978 the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed, specifically, to prevent the cultural harm that took place by removing Indian children from their community. In other words, if an Indian child is in need of protection, the specific guidelines to accomplish this without forcing cultural assimilation are in place (Herzberg, 2013).  These guidelines call for placement of abused children with extended family or other tribal members. However, agencies continue to disregard the requirements as put forth by ICWA, thus undermining tribal sovereignty and the cultural identity of the children they claim to protect. 

Making recommendations on how to reform this broken system is a tricky task. However, whatever policy reform is enacted in the child welfare system must begin by promoting tribal sovereignty.  Many of the issues arise from the belief that child welfare services run counter to Native American traditions; therefore, promoting tribal sovereignty is a step towards curtailing the coercive aspects of these services. Enforcement of the guidelines set forth by ICWA is another logical step; in other words, requiring the federal government to step in and oversee compliance of child welfare agencies to the guidelines of ICWA. According to Crofoot & Harris (2012), successful Indian programs provide a model for culturally appropriate delivery.  In addition, Harris & Hackeet (2008) recommends that welfare workers be examined at key decision points, for example 1) reporting for abuse and neglect; 2) referral of the report for investigation; 3) reunification services; 4) out-of-home placement; and 5) termination of parental rights. Lastly, Jones (2015) recommends the application of a racial equity lens in order to be more effective in addressing institutional or structural racism.  The history of forced assimilation of the American Indian, is long, ingrained, and by this point a dark piece of the American subconscious. There is a preponderance of evidence that race is directly linked to child protection services.  The relationship of the Native American to the child welfare system goes beyond even that relationship. There is an attempt to de-culturize that simply does not manifest with other ethnicities. Despite even legislative efforts the boarding-school desire to remove and re-educate persists. There is something to confront that is too big to bury and thus keeps re-emerging.

SOURCE