Running head: FINAL CASE STUDY 1

CSPS Foundations

Final Case Study

Gregory A. Wilson

Clinton School of Public Service

FINAL CASE STUDY 2

Introduction

Edwards stated that “when civic associations bring civility (decent, face-to-face

consideration of others) together with civicness (fighting for social and political change) they can

find an important key to lasting transformation and the achievement of the good society”

(Edwards, 2013). In today’s geopolitical climate, one might reasonably question the nature of

civil discourse, or lack thereof, and its inherent implications in the policy decisions that affect the

lives of so many fellow citizens; for example, one might consider the impetus behind policy

decisions that are enacted and wonder if elected public servants are truly acting in the public

good or in the consideration of the betterment of society, and if the lack of civil discourse and

increased polarization in modern politics is contributing to policies that are empirically sound

and equal in the eyes of the law and those whom they purport to serve. The consideration of

others, coupled with inclusive values and empathy, are vital components in bolstering public

service both in practice and in theory, and the absence thereof can be highly concerning and

alarming when critically examining public policies without succumbing to confirmation bias or

other threats.

Although the values undergirding the production and delivery of services and goods

promulgated in the public interest can vary from public servant to public servant, most often, a

common ground and understanding can be sought that an individual serving the public derived

their decisions in a just and fair manner, and that despite what at time are significant differences

of policy and goals, the person arrived at their decision fairly and with the public interest at

heart. The conclusion of Roger Miller's chapter in the Edwards text states, "It is in period of

prayer, reflection, teaching, and preaching that people are internally renewed and sometimes

inspired to undertake the heroic acts of social transformation.” It is from that understanding and
FINAL CASE STUDY 3

set of values that the following case is reviewed and analyzed in terms of the benefits and harms

undergone by those claiming to act in the public interest.

In the following case analysis, the author will explore in depth a case regarding Native

foster care in South Dakota, and the alarming number of Native and indigenous children that are

taken from their parents every year and placed into the foster care system, in terms of norms,

forms, and spaces as discussed in the Edwards text, and in relation to what it means to act (or not

act) in the public interest. The author will begin by summarizing the case details and an overview

of the problem. The author will subsequently expand upon that information and provide a

synthesis as it relates to norms, forms, and spaces. The author will highlight any flaws in the

reporting and will additionally provide insights and reflections upon any harm potentially done

while acting in the public interest.

FINAL CASE STUDY 4

Case Summary
In 1978, The Indian Child Welfare Act stated that Indian children should not unduly be

separated from their families or tribes and was codified into Federal law. Laura Sullivan, a NPR

reporter, reported on native persons, families, and communities that described themselves as

having a large number of “missing” children; that is, children who are taken from their families

and placed within the foster care system in South Dakota at what appeared to be alarming rates,

particularly when compared to other ethnic groups in the state of South Dakota. Perhaps most

important to highlight is the fact that children in care are often placed within communities that do

not resemble their families, communities, or tribes in what appeared to be a blatant disregard of

the State of South Dakota’s Social Services to comply with the Federal law mentioned above

during the time period in which Sullivan reported (Sullivan, 2011). Sullivan reported on the

disparate impact of these policies across racial groups and how they profoundly impacted the

Native communities which were placed into foster care at higher rates than their non-native peers

(Sullivan, 2011) and who appear to lose their tribal and cultural identities often as a result of the

foster care system in South Dakota.

At first glance, it is reported that children seem to be taken into the foster care system at

an alarming rate when compared to other populations in the state, but additionally when

compared to other states within the country (Sullivan, 2011). Sullivan reported that poverty,

crime, and alcoholism are rampant across many native and indigenous communities in South

Dakota, and that these socioeconomic variables play a contributing factor in the perception of

whether a child is being neglected or abused during the evaluation conducted by Social Services

when compared to their peers who are non-native (Sullivan, 2011).

FINAL CASE STUDY 5

At the crux of the concern facing the community is the practice that when a child is

evaluated for neglect or abuse, the children remanded into custody are often not placed with a

family member or capable relative but are instead remanded to the care of the State, often

without due process or accountability (Sullivan, 2011) and in what violates the spirit of the

Indian Child Welfare Act. Sullivan reported that every year the State is removing roughly 700

South Dakotan Indian children per year in the State of South Dakota and that when these

children are removed, roughly 9 out of 10 children who are remanded into foster care are placed

with non-native caretakers, in violation of the spirit of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Sullivan reported that State officials are doing “everything they can” to place children in

care with native families, but that there are significant barriers to doing so when evaluating for

example the overall number of native families as compared to the number of children in care.

Sullivan reported, however, of instances where Native foster families remained empty and

without any children to care for while Native children were simultaneously remanded into state

care and subsequently placed with White and non-native families and communities (Sullivan,

2011).

Sullivan reported on the federal dollars that results from a child being placed in foster

care who is of Indian or Alaskan Native status, and how vital those funds were for the operation

of state social services specifically in the State of South Dakota. It was reported that tribes are

considering enforcing their sovereignty as oftentimes tribes do not have agreements with the

State for workers to come onto Indian reservations and remand children into the foster care

system, and oftentimes children are taken from reservations with what seems like a lack of due

process. Legally, cases have not yet been brought questioning the jurisdiction of the state’s social

services department on Indian reservations as of the times of Sullivan’s reporting.

FINAL CASE STUDY 6

The cases reported on by Sullivan highlighted the hesitancy of the Bureau of Indian

Affairs at the federal level to intervene on this specific state matter (Sullivan, 2011). State

records show that only 13% of native foster care children are placed with native families overall,

while Sullivan reported that the State is consistently and always recruiting for Native foster

families (Sullivan, 2011). Sullivan reported that South Dakota is removing children at a rate

more than 3 times that of the National Average and that there are cultural differences that are not

being evaluated properly when social workers consider removing a child from their homes,

tribes, communities, and families. Sullivan reported that there was a “financial incentive at

work” in terms of the influx of federal funds for Native foster care children and the increase of

children being taken during the timeframe mentioned previously (Sullivan, 2011).
FINAL CASE STUDY 7

Review of the Case with Course Concepts

Norms

In the Edwards text, norms are inferred as values that underpin the basis of one’s actions

when acting in civil society in benefit of the public interest (Edwards, 2011). When considering

the case reported on by NPR’s Sullivan regarding native foster care in the State of South Dakota,

one would initially and with good reason question whether the norms, or values, underpinning

these policies is aligned with the best interest of these children. Although the State of South

Dakota obviously feels as though they are acting in the best interest of these children, important

questions must be raised, such as what measures are being taken with respect to the evaluators of

abuse and neglect (The Department of Social Service’s Social Workers) and ensuring their

cultural competency in regards to Native American concerns, given the high population density

for which they are providing services under the scope of their license. If the evaluators are not

acting in a manner that is culturally competent, what can be done to immediately remedy that

situation so as to prevent further harm to not only the children being remanded into state care but

also the tribes and communities from which the children are being removed?

In examining what norms are present in the NPR Case reported on by Sullivan, one must

consider what if any guiding values are underpinning the State of South Dakota’s policies in

current practice. While the State claims to be acting in the best interest of the children by

removing them from instances of neglect, the guiding value that does not appear to be present is

one that reunites a potentially neglected or abused child with a family member or relative who is

capable of caring for that child—oftentimes for free thus reducing the overall burden to

taxpayers if implemented properly.

FINAL CASE STUDY 8

Forms

In reviewing the case reported on by NPR’s Sullivan in relation to forms discussed in the

Edward’s text, it is imperative to review the various forms that were present in the policies

enacted when placing these Native and Indigenous children into the foster care system.

Certainly, there is a debate to be had about the role of private organizations housing these

children such as in the group homes mentioned by Sullivan, and which one company in South

Dakota owns a monopoly on in terms of competition and services rendered. Often, the contracts

by which this organization is operating are not bid out appropriately while the State maintains

the contract process was fair and equitable and that they are the only company that could

adequately provide the services to the community in a non-disruptive and consistent manner

(Sullivan, 2011).

Spaces

Regarding the spaces that the case study pertains most explicitly to as related to the

Edwards text, civil society and the government, civil society and civil liberties, and civil society

and public journalism seem to be the most salient concepts that the author wishes to examine as

it relates to the above case study. The author will break each civil space down as it relates to the

case regarding Native Foster Care in South Dakota, beginning with civil society and the

government.

Edwards in his 2011 text stated that “new institutions, shifting boundaries, and novel

interpenetrations of civil society and government are a constant, but sometimes these changes

amount to transformative moments.” The author shares the sentiments offered by Edwards but

would suggest that transformative moments, by definition, are not only positive but can also be
FINAL CASE STUDY 9

negative. The Edwards text also states, “government is the inclusive, putative authorized voice of

citizens, and bears principal responsibility for activities that serve common purposes.” When

reviewing civil society and the government, boundaries are something that repeatedly was

discussed in the text (Edwards, 2011) where you see a parallel in the case study with respect to

the ongoing disputes between state and federal law and jurisdiction concerning the forced

removal of these children from care.

Concerning civil society and civil liberties, some of the inherent challenges to the civil

liberties of the children, families, tribes, and communities seem to be impacted by this public

policy and its inherent ramifications, which leads many to question if the policy in effect is doing

more harm than it is good. As these children are stripped away from their families, communities

and Native culture and tribes, oftentimes for what the NPR reporter describes as socioeconomic

concerns as compared to what is traditionally thought of as a dangerous situation that would be

meritorious to remove a child from their home and families (neglect, abuse, and the like where

there is a fundamental safety and well-being concern), Federal law is not being followed in

regards to where the children are placed (with native or non-native foster parents).

Lastly, concerning the space of public journalism, Sullivan wanted to bring light to a

situation that often goes under-reported, which is useful in creating systemic social change that

will be long-lasting for this community. However, the bottom line as Edward Schumacher-Matos

stated in a 2013 NPR article in which he reviewed this segment was “My finding is that the

series was deeply flawed and should not have been aired as it was. The series committed five

sins that violate NPR's code of standards and ethics (Schumacher-Matos, 2013).
FINAL CASE STUDY 10

They were:

1. No proof for its main allegations of wrongdoing;

2. Unfair tone in communicating these unproven allegations;

3. Factual errors, shaky anecdotes and misleading use of data by quietly switching what was
being measured;

4. Incomplete reporting and lack of critical context;

5. No response from the state on many key points.

While Sullivan created a captivating narrative and drew important attention to this critical

public policy issue, even those at her organization could not fully stand behind her work due to

some factual errors and misleading data in her reporting. Some would argue that these errors

diminish the seriousness with which to view the case of Native foster care in this scenario.

However, the author believes that despite some of the errors in reporting, Sullivan’s journalistic

endeavors, and the journalism that followed in reviewing and highlighting her works success and

its challenges helped to better shape the narrative around this policy concern that would have

otherwise received very little media attention in the civil discourse.

 FINAL CASE STUDY 11

References

CSPS Values. (n.d.). retrieved from https://clintonschool.uasys.edu/about/purpose/values

Edwards, M. (Ed.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of civil society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schumacher-Matos, E. (2013, August 09). S. Dakota Indian Foster Care 1: Investigative Storytelling

Gone Awry. Retrieved July 05, 2018, from

https://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2013/08/09/186943929/s-dakota-indian-foster-care-1-

investigative-storytelling-gone-awry

Sullivan, L. Native foster case: Lost children, shattered families. (2011, October). All Things

Considered.