 |
 |
|
|||||||||
RSS
 |
Home > Tribal-State Relations
Tribal-State Relations
Issue Brief
We value your opinion!Please comment on this publication by taking our brief survey. Your answers are anonymous and will help us better meet your future information needs. Give Us Feedback on This Publication
What Are Some Promising Practices in Successful Tribal-State Relations? Tribes and States that engage in cooperative relationships have the potential to serve their children and families in a more comprehensive and holistic manner. Working together, States and Tribes around the country have developed a number of promising approaches to Tribal-State relations in child welfare, including:
These four approaches are briefly described below, and specific Tribal-State examples of each model are provided. Advisory Committees and Forums Some State governments have helped facilitate strong Tribal-State relations in child welfare by forming Tribal-State advisory committees. These committees take different forms and serve different purposes, but the overall goal is to provide a forum where policy and practice issues can be discussed and resolved regarding services to AI/AN children. A process of ongoing dialogue, whether in the form of advisory committees, forums, or legislative committees, allows Tribes and States to communicate about the impact of particular programs, services, and legislation within their communities. These approaches also provide opportunities for mutual education on State and Tribal government protocols and procedures, thus fostering increased mutual respect and understanding. The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services has developed Local Indian Child Welfare Advisory Committees (LICWACs) in each of its six regional service areas. Each LICWAC is comprised of Indian people from the region who have an interest and expertise in working effectively with Indian children and families. The LICWAC serves as a forum where State child custody cases involving AI/AN children can be reviewed to ensure compliance with both ICWA and procedures identified in Tribal-State agreements. Caseworkers from the State present their Indian child welfare cases to the LICWAC team in person and receive advice, feedback, and resources to help them provide effective services to the child and his or her family. The LICWAC also may provide information on how to contact the child's Tribe and develop an effective working relationship. Unlike the LICWACs, Oregon's Indian Child Welfare Advisory Committee is focused more on program-level discussions than case-level issues, but it has a similar goal of improving services to AI/AN children and families. The Committee, comprised of Tribal and State representatives involved in services to AI/AN children and families, meets at least once every quarter to discuss policy and practice issues. At these meetings, Tribal and State representatives share information about their programs, discuss new policies and their implementation, identify training needs, locate resources to support services for this population, and review compliance with ICWA. The Committee provides a valuable resource to both governments in monitoring and improving services. In New Mexico, the State and Tribes have developed an innovative forum with the unique purpose of improving juvenile court proceedings involving AI/AN children. The process began with a focus on ICWA compliance and funding access, but participants found they had even more fundamental issues related to jurisdiction and comity to address first. As a result, Tribal-State judicial forums were established, with a particular emphasis on strengthening relationships and communication between the two governments and their judicial systems. Intergovernmental Agreements and Contracts Establishing guiding principles for a government-to-government relationship through intergovernmental agreements and contracts is another way Tribes and States have improved relationships and better served AI/AN children and families. ACF requires States to consult with Tribes regarding the protection of children and the implementation of ICWA. Many States have entered into cooperative agreements with regard to the custody proceedings involving Tribal children. Many agreements, such as those in place in Minnesota and Washington, clarify who has jurisdictional authority, how that will be exercised, and how services will be provided to protect AI/AN children. Such agreements reduce the chance that children will be left in unsafe situations because of misunderstandings between agencies about who should be responding to child abuse or neglect referrals. Agreements that also identify State and Tribal resources, such as State personnel with expertise in ICWA or Tribal expert witnesses for court hearings, aid in making the best determinations regarding children's safety, permanency, and well-being. Some Tribal-State agreements go beyond defining how ICWA will be implemented to establish the values behind such an agreement (i.e., the importance of embracing Tribal culture and traditions). For example, New Mexico's agreement with the Navajo Nation, signed in 1985, states as its goal to "promote and strengthen the unity and security between the Navajo child and his or her natural family. The primary considerations in the placement of a Navajo child are to insure that the child is raised within the Navajo culture, that the child is raised within his or her family where possible and that the child is raised as an Indian" (as cited in Reed & Zelio, 1995, p. 29). Other Tribal-State agreements allow Tribes to receive Federal or State funding that they otherwise would be ineligible to receive, thus assisting in fostering permanency for Tribal children. For example, some States and Tribes have entered into agreements that allow Tribal governments to operate Federal Title IV-E foster care programs and secure reimbursement for IV-E eligible services. These agreements, approximately 70 of which are currently in operation in approximately 15 States, enhance Tribes' abilities to recruit and retain Tribal foster and adoptive families. The States of Montana and North Dakota are unique in that they have signed Title IV-E agreements with all of the federally recognized Indian Tribes within their borders. These agreements provide Tribes an opportunity to operate the Title IV-E foster care program in their communities and seek reimbursement for foster care maintenance and administrative activities. In addition, the agreements allow the Tribes to arrange Title IV-E eligible training for their caseworkers and foster parents. A number of States also have developed agreements to share funding from other Federal and State programs, such as the Title XX Social Services Block Grant program (Idaho) or State general funds (Washington). These agreements acknowledge the importance of Tribal placements and support services and help ensure that Tribal children receive uninterrupted protection, even with changes in Tribal and State leadership. In Washington, the State government has been contracting with Tribes since the mid-1980s to provide funding to assist Tribal governments as they enhance their own child welfare service capacity. The funding has been used for a variety of activities, such as Tribal child welfare code development (e.g., dependency, removal, investigation procedures), provision of child welfare services, program procedures development, and staff salaries for Tribal program staff who deliver child welfare services. One of the key principles that make this arrangement successful has been the State's commitment to allowing Tribal governments to make their own determinations about child welfare priorities and offering flexibility in how the services or efforts should be implemented. This commitment of State general fund resources has resulted in increasing numbers of Tribes being able to provide core child welfare services and provide assistance to the State in Indian child welfare cases off Tribal lands. In general, when developing Tribal-State agreements, Tribes and States should assess both needs and barriers by considering the following questions:
More specifically, States and Tribes interested in developing a Title IV-E agreement should consider the following questions before initiating the process:
Training and Information Sharing As mentioned earlier, ongoing communication is key in developing positive Tribal-State relationships in child welfare. A number of States and Tribes have developed processes for cross-training and information sharing that aid in developing and maintaining effective communication between the governments. Improving training opportunities for Tribal and State child welfare workers in this way helps improve understanding of the cultural context in which AI/AN children and their families live. This information is at the core of how families should be approached and worked with in child protection and permanency situations. In addition, training, especially when done jointly, can help workers better understand the organizational and community environment within which both State and Tribal workers operate. Breaking down stereotypes and identifying protocols can help workers from outside these systems reduce the time they spend trying to secure resources and understand the language needed to successfully communicate the needs of children and families. In several States, including Arizona and Oklahoma, Tribes and States regularly plan and host training conferences on Indian child welfare issues to support State and Tribal worker skill development, provide information on promising practices, and educate political leaders. In other States, such as Washington, State training academies have been opened up to Tribal staff, and trainings have been developed for State workers that explore practice and policy issues involved in serving AI/AN children and families beyond Indian Child Welfare Act compliance. In addition to improving individual worker skill development, this practice has indirectly provided new forums for Tribal and State workers to discuss the challenges that they face daily. In the early 1990s, North Dakota Tribes initiated discussions to develop a training organization that could meet the training needs of care providers, caseworkers, law enforcement and legal professionals, and others involved in the protection and care of American Indian children. This spawned a partnership with the State and private foundations that resulted in the establishment of the Native American Training Institute in Bismarck, ND. This organization provides training on topics such as program planning, risk assessment, and foster parent training and has facilitated advocacy at the Tribal and State levels to improve child welfare services and collaboration. Culturally Competent Permanency Alternatives When State practice moves closer to the values, traditions, and customs of AI/AN children's Tribes and families, the children benefit. Practitioners who provide more culturally appropriate options in safety and permanency create greater ownership and buy-in from the child's Tribe and reduce potential conflicts in case planning. Individual families also are more engaged when there is a more individualized approach. One example of this has been the exploration of more culturally competent permanency options for AI/AN children in many States. Several States have submitted proposals under the Federal child welfare waiver program to allow the use of Title IV-E funds to support subsidized guardianships—a permanent placement option of interest to many Tribes. Montana and New Mexico's demonstration projects offer a guardianship option for children in either Tribal or State custody; procedures for processing the cases of children in Tribal custody are determined by appropriate Tribal government authorities. In their proposals, both States cited cultural norms against TPR as a motivation for pursuing alternatives to adoption. Another permanency alternative that is generating interest within Tribal communities is the concept of customary adoptions, in which parental rights are modified but not terminated, thus helping to maintain important family connections. States are becoming more aware of the benefits of accommodating Tribal customary adoption and beginning to explore ways to institutionalize the acceptance of this practice more routinely with AI/AN children. Minnesota and Washington are two States that have begun to implement this approach and educate their State workers. Impact on the Safety, Permanency, and Well-Being of Indian Children Protecting AI/AN children requires a complex system of child welfare services that involves many different entities, including law enforcement, the courts, and social service agencies. However, when States and Tribes work together in a cooperative manner, children and families benefit from the following:
While collaboration can be challenging, it is important for States and Tribes to continue to actively pursue opportunities to form positive working relationships with one another with patience, acceptance, and flexibility. Through the development of cooperative practices such as forums and advisory committees, Tribal-State agreements, training and information-sharing opportunities, and culturally competent permanency alternatives, Tribes and States have the opportunity to improve services and more effectively meet the safety and permanency needs of AI/AN children and families. In developing Tribal-State collaborations, both entities would do well to heed the advice of Sitting Bull, a wise Lakota ancestor: "Let us put our minds together to see what life we can make for our children" (1877). 4 For more specific information on successful components of Title IV-E agreements, please see the Brown et al. (2000) document entitled Tribal/state Title IV-E intergovernmental agreements: Facilitating tribal access to federal resources. You can access this document by visiting www.nicwa.org and clicking on the "Research" link under the "Policy and Research" tab. back
We value your opinion!Please comment on this publication by taking our brief survey. Your answers are anonymous and will help us better meet your future information needs. Give Us Feedback on This Publication This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. |
||||||
|
|||||||
Email
Order (Free)
Print (PDF 223 KB)
Share
