For one group of children in particular, American Indians and
Alaska Natives, exceedingly high poverty rates have had profound impacts
on community wellbeing and long-term cohesiveness. Given the best
available data, from the U.S. Census data, child poverty rates among
American Indians and Alaska Natives have consistently exceeded 40% for
almost the past 30 years.*
However, a recent National Academics of Sciences (NAS) report
affirms what many in these communities have long known—that the data on poverty are sparse and not as reliable for this group as it is for other groups or communities in the U.S.:
“Small sample sizes in population surveys have made it
particularly difficult to reliably measure poverty rates among American
Indian and Alaska Native children. Moreover, we know little about the
effectiveness of a number of important programs and policies – whether
provided by the tribes, by the states, or by the federal government –
that affect this population.”
As a result, it is quite difficult to accurately track the impact
that various programs have had on child poverty over time or how
applicable standard assessments of what poverty looks like actually are
to American Indian communities.
Are conditions as bad as indicated by
the official poverty rates shown above? (see website)
Historically, high levels of
perceived poverty have been used to justify the removal of American
Indian children from their households by state foster care systems. As
recently as the 1970s, state welfare agents were removing almost one
third of all American Indian children from their households and placing
them in state foster or adoptive care systems. (Mannes, 1995)
One of the aims of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 was to
stop the removal of American Indian children from their households due
to poverty. A number of studies had confirmed that social workers were
removing American Indian children from households not due to
maltreatment or being orphaned but simply due to the perceived poverty
status of the household (see MacEachron, Ann E., and Nora Gustavsson,
2005). The ICWA legislation was intended to improve tribal control over
the determination and placement of American Indian children within the
foster care system.
Congress reaffirmed tribal government authority and oversight of the
placement of its own citizens – its children. Tribal courts were
delegated the authority and jurisdiction over the placement of its own
citizens (and those eligible for tribal citizenship enrollment) in
foster or adoptive homes.
For instance, Chris Newell (Passamaquoddy; Director of Education;
Akomawt Educational Initiative) describes a fundamental misunderstanding
of the concept of family and neglect in his Passamaquoddy community in
Maine:
“In Maine, parents would often leave their children with their
grandparents or other extended family members when they would leave for
seasonal work elsewhere. To the state, however, this constitutes neglect
and could qualify a child for removal. In reality, our children’s needs
were commonly met by extended family and community beyond the nuclear
family.”
Mr. Newell served as a senior advisor on a recent documentary film called “
Dawnland,”
which exposes the impact of such practices on American Indian children
and their parents decades later in the state of Maine. The film depicts
the long-term trauma and damage that resulted from the removal of
children from their families; it also shows the damage to the children
caused by their removal from their kinship network and cultural
connections.
Individuals with little exposure to or
experience with American Indian communities would have little to no
knowledge of these forms of social safety nets.
Assessing economic conditions may also be quite difficult for
individuals who are unfamiliar with American Indian communities and
practices. There are important culturally-specific safety nets that
exist in many American Indian communities; most of which would be
unknown to outsiders. Individuals with little exposure to or experience
with American Indian communities would have little to no knowledge of
these forms of social safety nets.
The recent NAS report indicates that even standard measures of
poverty are difficult to measure for the American Indian population.
However, neither the Official Poverty Measure (OPM) nor the Supplemental
Poverty Measure (SPM), which includes taxes and federal government
in-kind transfers, account for community or kinship in-kind transfers or
from tribal governments. In certain American Indian communities, for
instance, hunting, trapping, fishing and other subsistence activities
are important parts of the economic and social interactions of community
members. These activities do not show up directly as cash income nor
are they identified as federal government in-kind transfers. As a
result, the OPM and SPM measures may not accurately depict the general
welfare of American Indian families or children. In fact, they may
understate the resources in some families and whole communities.
While this does not dismiss the fact that child poverty is probably
still too high in many American Indian reservations, it does indicate
that there may be other activities or practices that exist in non-market
(even non-governmental) forms to assist families. Subsistence
activities and the sharing of resources is difficult to document with
administrative records or tax returns; nevertheless, these safety nets
have played an important role in these communities for hundreds if not
thousands of years. Individuals with little exposure to or experience
with American Indian communities would have little to no knowledge of
these forms of social safety nets.
Challenges to ICWA often focus on an erroneous assumption that these
policies are race-based.
However, providing tribal government
jurisdiction and authority over its own citizens’ welfare is based on
American Indian tribal sovereignty- not race. Tribal citizenship
enrollment and eligibility is based on tribal government rules which are
often specific to a particular tribe and may require showing direct
lineal descent from certain enrolled ancestors; there may be other
additional conditions for tribal citizenship such as a minimum blood
quantum, residency requirement or demonstrated relationship with the
community. In the current court case,
Brackeen v. Zinke, where
oral arguments are scheduled to begin in the Fifth Circuit court this
week, the same arguments have been made. ICWA has played an important
role in stopping the seizure of American Indian children from their
communities. Misunderstanding of how American Indian communities care
for their own children and the inability to assess non-monetary
well-being of American Indian communities should not play a role in the
removal of children from their homes. ICWA plays a critical role in
safeguarding these children and maintaining the local and tribal
authority for placing American Indian children in foster or adoptive
care. Let’s not go backwards.
Sources:
“7 Other Policy and Program
Approaches to Child Poverty Reduction.” National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Roadmap to Reducing Child Poverty.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Page XXX. doi:
10.17226/25246
Mannes, M. (1995). Factors and events leading to the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Child Welfare, 74(1), 264–282.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A
Roadmap to Reducing Child Poverty. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. “7 Other Policy and Program Approaches to Child Poverty
Reduction.” Page 203. doi: 10.17226/25246.
MacEachron, A. E., Gustavsson, N. S., Cross, S., & Lewis, A.
(1996). The effectiveness of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The
Social Service Review, 70(3), 451–463.
Author
*
Editor Note: The government takes the land AND causes the poverty, then they want more LAND and take the children to achieve this goal. The genocide cycle never ends... That is the sport of colonization and empire. Trace
