Tribal and State Worker Needs on Indian Child Welfare Cases: Findings from a State Evaluation

As a part of its statutory authority to protect Tribal citizens and preserve Tribal communities, the Indian Child Welfare Act has two arenas of jurisdiction: Tribal exclusive jurisdiction for cases including Tribal minor citizens on Tribal land; and concurrent jurisdiction between Tribal and state child welfare systems for Tribal minor citizens on non-Tribal land. Because of statutory practice guidelines in ICWA, particularly active efforts and placement preferences, Tribal workers and state workers should work together on cases. However, little research exists on how Tribal workers and state workers view each other and collaborate on ICWA. This qualitative study addresses that gap.

Methods:

As part of evaluating a state ICWA statute in a Midwestern state, community partners from Indigenous-serving organizations conducted two virtual listening circles, one with Tribal child welfare workers and one with current and former state-system child welfare workers using a semi-structured interview protocol developed by the project’s Indigenous community advisory board. Workers who could not make the listening circles were offered interviews via Zoom utilizing the original interview protocol. Altogether, 14 people (6 Tribal workers and 8 state/agency workers) contributed to the study. Data was transcribed using speech-to-text software through Otter.ai, 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. Initial findings were member-checked and community-checked with the advisory boards for the overall project, some of whom participated in interviews.

Findings:

Among all workers, the theme of the importance of mutual understanding between Tribal and state workers was frequent. Tribal workers reported the importance of state workers understanding the complexities of their jobs, including case management beyond the borders of state boundaries with few resources. Both groups highlighted the importance of Zoom in improving participation and collaboration. Both groups also stressed the importance of active efforts (including cultural plans where necessary) While some state workers with ICWA cases commented that the active efforts demands of ICWA practice bleed over into how they manage all their cases, nearly all state workers commented that either they needed reduced caseloads or suggested there should be ICWA-specific teams because of the extra work with maintaining active efforts in practice. Some state workers emphasized they did not have enough training to work ICWA cases well and that there was a dearth of culturally appropriate services to meet ICWA practice demands, even with Tribal worker support.

Conclusions and Implications:

For ICWA cases to be managed well, collaboration and understanding between Tribes and the state is paramount. However, both Tribes and state workers report scarcity, whether of time, culturally appropriate services, resources, or training. Finding novel ways to collaborate under the aegis of the ICWA is critical to promoting the well-being of Indian families in state child welfare systems. However, time for active efforts appears to be one of the most significant issues in ICWA practice when managing a full caseload.