Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CultureLoss AIfamilydisruption Urbanization ICWA
CultureLoss AIfamilydisruption Urbanization ICWA
Literature Review
By the start of the 20th century, American Indians who had sur-
vived contact with Europeans had been redistributed. Much of
this reallocation occurred during the 19th century with Ameri-
can Indian "removals," the establishment of the reservation sys-
tem, and the subsequent eradication and apportionment of some
reservations (Thornton, 2001). In both the United States and
Canada, redistribution of American Indians also occurred through
urbanization.
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000), as of No-
vember 1,1999, there were 2,410,000 American Indians and Alaska
Natives in the United States. Often, it is believed that American
Indians live in isolation on reservations. Actually, most Ameri-
can Indian people live in urban centers; more than twice as many
live in urban centers than on reservations. The five urban areas
with the largest American Indian populations are Los Angeles
(87,487); Tulsa, Oklahoma (48,196); New York (46,191); Oklahoma
City (45,120); and San Francisco (40,847). Census figures indicate
that 51% of American Indians reside in urban communities, and
25% live on reservations. The urbanization of American Indians,
through migration to cities and towns, began in the 1950s and
has continued since (Thornton, 2001). Urbanization has created
new problems for American Indians, including the accelerated
numbers of intermarriage with non-Indians, a decrease in a sense
of tribal identity, a decrease in the number of American Indians
who speak a tribal language at home, and increases in those who
have no reported tribal affiliation and little, if any, participation
in cultural activities (Thomton, 2001). These trends have affected
both the genetic and tribal distinctiveness of the American In-
dian population; they have also contributed to the development
of unstable family functioning.
322 CHILD WELFARE Vol. LXXXI, #2 March/April
1978. ICWA provided Indian parents and tribes the right to de-
cide what was best for their children and affirmed the cultural
needs of Indian children. ICWA also recognized the notion of
"groupness" and the understanding that Indian people placed a
high value on the support and well-being of the tribe and ex-
tended family (Paulson, 1999).
From the outset, the aim of federal policy had always been to
deal with the Indian problem. The goal of federal legislation was
to separate American Indian children from their families and to
eradicate communally based child socialization. It was reasoned
that curtailing, if not totally stopping, the transmission of Ameri-
can Indian socialization and family practices would result in as-
similation of American Indians into the fabric of the dominant
social structure. It was believed that this absorption would cause
American Indian children to develop autonomy (Deloria, 1985).
What followed, however, was almost 100 years of deliberate fam-
ily separation as a method of "deculturation" (Burger, 1995).
Another corollary to deculturation and family disruption was
the belief in "child rescue," a policy whereby the removal of
American Indian children was promoted and supported (Marines,
1993). By removing these children from their families and facili-
tating their adoption by non-Indian families, social services aided
in the assimilation of thousands of Indian persons (Byler & Unger,
1974-1979). As a result, many American Indian children in this
century have grown up separated from their families of origin, away
from their tribal localities, and outside their culture (Coontz, 1988).
Method
As a method for gathering data, the qualitative interview dates
back to field research techniques used earlier in the 20th century
(Babbie, 1994). By combining the two theoretical frameworks
mentioned above, the present study based its research strategy
on the works of Tashima, Crain, O'Reilly, and Elifson (1996), called
the Community Identification Process (CID).
The CID process starts with the premise that, when commu-
nity input is not included in exploratory research, key concepts
and dynamics relevant to the topic are often omitted. Including
members of the target community in the design and execution of
a cross-cultural research effort enhances the cultural efficacy and
ecological validity of the project.
The CID process seeks to vincover how people view themselves
and their world, as a means to discover how best to embody key
views and concepts in a research project (Tashima et al., 1996).
Kelly Halverson / Maria Elena Puig / Steven R. Byers 327
FIGURE 1
Community Identification Process
Conclusion
This study is an initial effort to examine how urban American
Indians think and feel about the foster care system. Interpreta-
tions are based on indigenous cultural values and historical is-
sues. For example, respondents emphasized a more holistic ap-
proach to foster care, such as taking into consideration the needs
of both the foster parents and birthparents, rather than severing
ties between parents and kin. Cultural orientation also points to
the need for child welfare workers to take a less Westem view of
many social and economic standards. For instance, when consid-
ering adequate housing for families, values differ on the space
and layout of homes. American Indian foster parents who par-
Kelly Halverson / Maria Elena Puig / Steven R. Byers 333
References
Blanchard, E. L., & Barsh, R. L. (1980). What is best for tribal children: A response to
Fischler. Social Work, 25,350-357.
Burger, R. A. (1995). Effects of the boarding school experience on American Indian families:
Practice guidelines. St. Paul, MN: Augsburg College.
Byler, M. G., & Unger, S. (1974-1979). Indian Family Defense. Bulletin Nos. 1-11. New
York: Association on American Indian Affairs.
California Indian Legal Services. (1998). California judges benchguide: The Indian Child
Welfare Act (pp. 42-43). Eureka, CA: Author.
Coontz, S. (1988). The social origins of private life: A history of American Indian families,
1600-1900. New York: Verso.
336 CHILD WELFARE Vol. LXXXI, #2 March/April
Cross, T. (1996). Cross-cultural skills in Indian child welfare: A guidefor the non-Indian. Port-
land, OR: National Indian Child Welfare Association.
Deloria, V. (1985). American Indian policy in the twentieth century. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
George, L. J. (1997). Why the need for the Indian Child Welfare Act? Journal ofMulticultural
Social Work, 5(3/4), 165-175.
Horejsi, C , Heavy Runner Craig, B., & Pablo, J. (1992). Reactions by Native Americans
to child protection agencies: Cultural and community factors. Child Welfare, 17(4),
329-342.
Mannes, M. (1993). Seeking the balance between child protection and family preserva-
tion in Indian child welfare. Child Welfare, 72(2), 141-152.
Paulson, S. (1999). Would ive still be Indian without our parents? [Training brochure].
Bismark, ND: Native American Child and Family Services Training Institute.
Red Horse, J. (1980). American Indian elders: Unifiers of Indian families. Social Case-
work, 61,490-493.
Sheafor, B. W., Horejsi, C. R., & Horejsi, G. A. (1997). Techniques and guidelines for social
work practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tashima, N., Crain, C, O'Reilly, K., & Elifson, C. S. (1996). The community identification
(CID) process: A discovery model. Qualitative Health Research, 6(1), 23-48.
Thornton, R. (2001). Studying Native America: Problems and prospects. Madison: Univer-
sity of Wisconsin Press.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.