![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
In 2019, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) sought comments to update data elements within the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). These elements included information on youth in foster care who demonstrate non-cis-heteronormative sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression (SOGIE) and indicators of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Both groups have experienced state-sanctioned or state-supported violence from the American child welfare system for characteristics described as “queering” (Moussawi & Vidal-Ortiz, 2020) the dominant culture - and have subsequently experienced erasure through governmental processes. To resist erasure, they have historically organized solidarity campaigns. This study examines how these groups and state agencies, within the context of child welfare, have developed narratives that resist or maintain these frameworks across intentional and unintentional coalitions.
Methods:
Researchers downloaded 373 public statements posted on regulations.gov webpage between April 19, 2019 and June 18, 2019 into Dedoose for analysis. While statements were primarily submitted by non-profit organizations, state agencies, and Tribal Nations across the US, many were submitted by unaffiliated individuals. Researchers used thematic analysis to code and categorize the data (Miles et al., 2014). Coalitions were identified in submissions both by grouping similar content and by templates. Memoing was utilized throughout the data collection and coding process to aid in thematic identification.
Findings:
Over half the public statements were developed from one of seven templates. Those who used templates were primarily from Tribal Nations and non-profit organizations. Templates were not used verbatim; instead, they added information that highlighted specific agency or organizational concerns. There were no identifiable templates used by any of the 50 state governments or agencies.
Coalitions were divided broadly into those for and those against adding the data elements. Those for adding the elements included Tribal organizations and LGBTQ+-affirming individuals or organizations, while those against primarily included state governments and agencies. Those opposed highlighted the expense in expanding and updating technology for gathering data, the extra time to collect and upload the data, and some states’ beliefs that they lacked an Indigenous presence, making those elements unnecessary. Conversely, those in favor underscored how the data could improve child welfare system services, fulfill prior statutory requirements, reduce the cost of child welfare over time by improving its efficiency, much needed updates to AFCARS, and improve outcomes for Indigenous and LGBTQ+ youths in care and their communities. Those supporting ICWA elements also highlighted how they reinforce Tribal Sovereignty. While some coalitions had intentionally organized their statements, evident by shared template types, other coalitions formed unintentionally through shared concerns or perceived value of adding the data elements.
Conclusions and Implications:
Opposing the addition of data elements to AFCARS, state governments, and agencies may be contributing to the sustained erasure of Indigenous and LGBTQ+ communities. The creation of coalitions, evidenced by organized solidarity efforts (i.e., the use of a template), suggests that minority communities are resisting through social advocacy campaigns in the public comments stage of the policy rule-making process.