Implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act: A Qualitative Study with System Involved Families and Caregivers

Background and Purpose:

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), passed in 1978, was designed to preserve Indigenous Communities. Some states have enacted a state-level version of the ICWA to clarify the federal mandates and ensure their continued enforcement in the event that the federal law is ever deemed unconstitutional. Although ICWA mandates are regarded as the gold standard for case management practice, there is limited research on how caregivers of system-involved children experience the impact of the ICWA. This study addresses that gap by using qualitative interviews to explore how families and caregivers experience ICWA.

Methods:

As part of a statewide evaluation on ICWA in a Midwestern state, community partners from Indigenous-serving organizations conducted six focus groups (N=45) in six cities and over Zoom using a semi-structured interview protocol developed by the project’s Indigenous community advisory board. Researchers conducted an additional six individual follow-up interviews with those who attended the focus group with additional commentary, and four individual interviews via Zoom utilizing the original interview protocol with those who could not attend. Data was transcribed using speech-to-text software, then de-identified and cleaned. Researchers used thematic analysis to code and categorize the transcripts (Miles et al., 2014). Memos including both analysis decisions and coders’ personal reactions to content were completed after meetings and coding to aid in analysis.

Findings:

The most prominent theme that emerged was the critical role of self-advocacy and knowledge of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in empowering families and caregivers. Many reported knowing more about ICWA than professionals involved in their case and had to advocate for their rights under ICWA when engaging with child welfare workers and the courts. They were compelled to educate themselves about ICWA after losing faith that the child welfare system would uphold the law and act in the child’s best interest. Some described the system as inefficient and impersonal, marked by delays, poor communication, and unprepared caseworkers focused on “checking boxes”. Many discussed using their ICWA knowledge to hold caseworkers and legal professionals accountable, detailing how the child welfare and court systems stopped aggressively asserting their authority after the caregiver advocated for their rights under ICWA. Despite their efforts, however, they lamented the loss of cultural identity where ICWA was inconsistently applied or disregarded altogether. Families and caregivers emphasized the need for systemic improvements, including ongoing education, culturally responsive training, and better coordination among courts, caseworkers, and Tribes to reduce delays and ensure consistent support for families.

Conclusions and Implications:

Despite the harms they experienced, families and caregivers remained committed to keeping children connected to their Tribal Nations and traditions, often educating themselves on ICWA and advocating for its application. When caseworkers failed to invoke ICWA, caregivers held them accountable to ensure the law was followed. This study highlights two key implications: 1) Tribes and Indigenous organizations should provide families and caregivers with information about ICWA to empower their advocacy, and 2) child welfare agencies must enhance both the implementation of ICWA and workers’ understanding of its application.