The United States Congress and Tribal governments
have articulated the importance of protecting the safety,
permanency, and well-being of American Indian and Alaska
Native children. Through the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
of 1978, Congress stated that there is “no resource that is
more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian
tribes than their children” (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901).
This brief is intended to help States, Tribes, and related
jurisdictions find ways to work together more effectively to
meet the goals of ICWA.
Key Factors Affecting Tribal State
Relations in Child Welfare
Tribal child welfare has had a particularly
poignant history in the past century.
Thousands of Indian children were forcibly
removed from their homes, families, and
Tribes and placed in boarding schools where
a policy of assimilation left them unable to
speak their Native language or participate
in their Native culture. Native customs and
practices were destroyed, families were
broken up, and generations of Indian children
grew to adulthood without the benefit of
parenting or the support of their families or
Tribes. This has contributed to a great level
of distrust and historical trauma that continue
to affect American Indian and Alaska Native
families.
Today, almost all Tribes operate some form of
child protection services, and many have their
own Tribal codes, court systems, and child
welfare programs. A number of factors affect
relationships between Tribes and States in
the provision of child welfare services. These
include, but are not limited to:
• The Federal trust responsibility between
Tribes and the Federal Government,
which refers to the Federal Government’s
obligation to protect Tribal self-governance,
assets, resources, lands, and treaty rights
(25 U.S.C. §§ 450; 450a)
The influence of various Federal policies,
including policies that allowed Indian lands
to be taken from Tribes and Indian children
to be removed for assimilation
State jurisdiction over Tribal affairs, for
instance, through Public Law 280 (P.L. 280),
initially enacted in 1953 in six “mandatory”
States and other “optional” States in 1968
that elected to assume full or partial State
jurisdiction on Indian reservations, and
eliminating Federal jurisdiction for Indian
Country (Gardner & Melton, n.d.)
• Tribal-State disagreements, especially those
that end up in court and result in a “winner”
and a “loser”
• Availability of funding for child welfare
activities, which historically required Tribes
to access much of their child welfare
funding through the States, although Tribes
could access funding from title IV-B and
Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian child welfare
grants
• Tribal-State differences in child welfare
values and practices, especially differences
related to the importance of family,
community, culture, and permanency
• Disproportionality of Indiaan children in the
child welfare system, such that American
Indian and Native Alaskan children are in
foster care at a rate that is double that of
nonminority children (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2011)
Since the passage of ICWA, Tribes could
run their own child welfare systems but were
unable, until recently, to directly receive
title IV-E funds except through their States.
The passage of the Fostering Connections
to Success and Achieving Adoptions Act of
2008 allowed Tribes to apply for child welfare
funding directly from the Federal Government
through title IV-E of the Social Security Act.It is impossible to talk about Tribal-State
relations without referencing the long anddifficult history. The timeline at the end of this
brief provides a glimpse at that history and
important events and milestones.
More recent legislation has attempted to
address some of the inequities of the past:
• In 1978, Congress passed ICWA (Public Law
95-608), establishing Federal standards for
the removal, placement, and termination
of parental rights of American Indian
and Alaska Native children. ICWA also
clarified the jurisdiction of State and Tribal
governments in child welfare, authorized
Tribal-State agreements, and provided
funding for the development of Tribal
programs.
• In 1991, the Indian Child Protection and
Family Violence Prevention Act (Public Law
101-630) established Federal requirements
for the reporting of and investigation of
child abuse and neglect on Tribal lands,
required background checks on individuals
who have contact with American Indian and
Alaska Native children (including foster and
adoptive families), and authorized funding
for Tribal child abuse prevention and
treatment programs.
• In October 2008, the Fostering Connections
to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
(Public Law 110-351) was passed, giving
Tribes, among other things, the option to directly access title IV-E funds to operate
foster care, adoption assistance, and, if
elected, kinship guardianship assistance
programs. The act also requires each State
title IV-E agency to negotiate in good faith
with any Tribe that request to develop an
agreement with a State to administer all or
part of the title IV-E program.
In November 2009, President Barack
Obama released a memo in tandem with
a reiteration of Executive Order 13175,
ordering Federal agencies to engage in
government-to-government consultation
with Tribes. The memo states:
The United States has a unique legal
and political relationship with Indian
tribal governments, established through
and confirmed by the Constitution of
the United States, treaties, statutes,
executive orders, and judicial decisions.
In recognition of that special relationship,
pursuant to Executive Order 13175
of November 6, 2000, executive
departments and agencies are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with tribal
officials in the development of Federal
policies that have tribal implications, and
are responsible for strengthening the
government-to-government relationship
between the United States and Indian
tribes.
• In 2010, a new Tribal Consultation Policy
for the Health and Human Services Agency
was developed with input from Tribes
and a newly created Tribal consultation
group. The policy, implemented in
2011, is available on the Office of
Intergovernmental External Affairs website:
http://www.hhs.gov/intergovernmental/
tribal/tcp.html
• In 2010, the Tribal Law and Order Act
(TLOA) was designed to address three
overall Tribal justice issues: (1) lack of
Federal Government accountability for
investigating and prosecuting crimes
in Indian Country, (2) lack of Tribal
Government authority, and (3) longstanding
lack of adequate and consistent funding for
Tribal justice systems. For more information,
visit the TLOA website: http://tloa.ncai.org
A more comprehensive review of ICWA
in addition to resources for working with
American Indian children and families can
be found on Child Welfare Information
Gateway’s website: http://www.childwelfare.
gov/systemwide/cultural/adoption/american_
indian_families.cfm
Understanding the difficult history between
States and Tribes, and the historical trauma
it caused, is key for developing strong
government-to-government relationships.
The Indian Country Child Trauma Center’s
(ICCTC) resource guide, Trauma in Indian
Country, defines trauma and factors that
increase vulnerability for American Indian and
Native Alaska populations and provides tips
for professionals working with Native children
and families. The resource guide is available
on ICCTC’s website: http://www.icctc.org/
Trauma%20in%20Indian%20Count.
A more comprehensive review of ICWA
in addition to resources for working with
American Indian children and families can
be found on Child Welfare Information
Gateway’s website: http://www.childwelfare.
gov/systemwide/cultural/adoption/american_
indian_families.cfm
Understanding the difficult history between
States and Tribes, and the historical trauma
it caused, is key for developing strong
government-to-government relationships.
The Indian Country Child Trauma Center’s
(ICCTC) resource guide, Trauma in Indian
Country, defines trauma and factors that
increase vulnerability for American Indian and
Native Alaska populations and provides tips
for professionals working with Native children
and families. The resource guide is available
on ICCTC’s website: http://www.icctc.org/
Trauma%20in%20Indian%20Country-revised.
pdf
The California American Indian Enhancement
(AIE) Project’s Implementation Toolkit includes
a list of common responses by individuals
who may be unaware of or unwilling to open
up about their heritage because of distrust
or historical trauma. The toolkit also provides
a 12-minute video highlighting why workers
should ask every child and family receiving
services if they have American Indian or
Alaska Native heritage, and direction on
culturally sensitive ways to inquire about
ancestry. For more information, visit the AIE
Project’s website: http://calswec.berkeley.edu/
CalSWEC/AIE/AIE_Background.html
Components of Successful
Tribal-State Relations
States and Tribes are most successful in
achieving better outcomes for children
and families when they establish positive
partnerships. The following are necessary
components for building strong Tribal-State
relationships and questions to assess the
development of each component.
Mutual Understanding of
Government Structures
To ensure a quality working relationship
between Tribes and States and to identify
avenues for negotiating common interests
related to child welfare, an understanding of
and appreciation for the different government
structures is paramount.
The following are some questions that
can be used to assess agency and Tribal
understanding of government structures:
• Who are the appropriate people at both
the Tribal and State levels to discuss child
welfare issues (e.g., Tribal council, State
governor, child welfare director)?
• Does the agency know all the Tribes in the
State and the ICWA representatives for
each Tribe?
• How are child welfare program and policy
decisions made within each government
and governmental entity?
• What does the child welfare service
delivery system look like? What are the key
agencies, and what is their authority and
mission?
• Who is the service population for each
government?
• What is the best process for discussions and
negotiations?
Cooperation and Respect
Within Tribal communities, mutual respect
and humility are greatly valued. Without
cooperation from all involved parties and
decision-makers, solutions cannot be reached
and outcomes cannot be improved. American
Indians and Alaska Natives have rich traditions,
cultural practices, and unique approaches
to child welfare that are among the most
successful used within this population. When
States respect those traditions and are open
to Native approaches, there is a better chance
for strengthening relationships and, above all,
improving outcomes for children and families.
Below are some questions that can be used to
assess the level of cooperation and respect:
• What are all the Tribal leaders’ names?
• What are the Tribes’ governing structures,
approaches to child welfare, and practices?
• Do Federal, State, and Tribal governments
have equal representation at meetings?
• Is the environment for collaboration and
meetings one in which it is safe to share,
learn, and explore? Are meeting locations
beneficial to all those concerned?
• Are meetings equally centered on common
areas of interest and agreement, as they are
on differences between systems?
• Were all culturally appropriate permanency
options considered?Tribal-State Relations http://www.childwelfare.gov
6 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare
Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/tribal_state/index.cfm
The Tribal STAR
The Tribal STAR (Successful Transitions for
Adult Readiness) program, sponsored by
the San Diego State University School of
Social Work, offers a number of resources
and curricula on cultural competence and
training. Resources are available on Tribal
STAR’s website: http://theacademy.sdsu.
edu/TribalSTAR/resources/Resource_List.
htm#Products
Pocket Culture Card
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA)
provides a pocket resource for
service providers working with Tribes.
“CultureCard: A Guide to Build Cultural
Awareness: American Indian and Alaska
Native” provides brief summaries of
customs, beliefs, and social norms to
improve cultural competence when
serving families in Tribal communities.
Some topics addressed include:
• Communication styles
• Self-awareness and etiquette
• Spirituality
• The role of veterans and elders
• Community strengths
• Historic distrust
• Regional and cultural differences
Download the “CultureCard” or order
copies on the SAMHSA website: store.
samhsa.gov/product/American-Indianand-Alaska-Native-Culture-Card/
SMA08-4354
Ongoing Communication
Often, Tribes and States communicate only
in times of conflict or misunderstanding.
Various mechanisms, such as public and
private forums, can promote healthy,
ongoing communication. Productive working
relationships are hinged on the personal
relationships of individual officials and
the regularity of communication between
individuals. It is helpful to establish a process
for frequent review and assessment of
policies and develop recommendations for
improvement.
Many States and Tribes have created joint
child welfare advisory committees to cultivate
an environment of open communication
and planning. Based on the experience of
the members of the Arizona Court Forum as
reported in Rubin’s “Tribal Courts and State
Courts: From Conflicts to Common Ground”
(1992), below is a list of Do’s and Don’ts for
establishing Tribal-State forums.
Tribal/State Court Forum Do’s and Don’ts
Membership
• DO select forum members from diverse
perspectives who have demonstrated
interest, expertise, or experience in
addressing Indian law issues.
• DON’T select forum members based only
on their position within the judiciary or
elsewhere.
Mutual Respect
• DO acknowledge differences between
Tribal and State court systems and seek
ways of cooperating consistent with those
differences.
• DON’T characterize either system as better,
worse, or more or less sophisticated than
the other.
Scope
• DO proceed in phases with predetermined
timeframes, including a study phase
in which issues are identified, before
implementing recommendations.
• DON’T devote resources to implementation
until a consensus is reached concerning
priority issues and recommendations.
Persistence
• DO design a process that invites broadbased
participation in identifying issues and
making recommendations.
• DON’T be discouraged by lack of
participation or lack of progress.
Performance
• DO assign manageable tasks to
forum members or subcommittees to
be accomplished within established
timeframes.
• DON’T delay too long before dividing
the work of the forum into tasks that can
be accomplished within the timeframes
established.
Solutions
• DO emphasize creative solutions to
jurisdictional issues that avoid litigation and
are consistent with the rights of the parties,
sovereignty, and judicial independence.
• DON’T emphasize jurisdictional limitations.
Communications
• DO emphasize person-to-person
communication and education to address
jurisdictional issues.
• DON’T seek to address jurisdictional issues
solely through large-scale change in the law
or legal systems.
For a list of Tribal contact information,
visit the Bureau of Indian Affairs website:
http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/
HumanServices/IndianChildWelfareAct/
index.htm
Another resource for searchable ICWA
contact information is Ayazuta, which has
downloadable ICWA Tribal contact data,
information on qualified ICWA expert
witnesses, and other resources searchable
by Tribe name, State, or keyword. View
these tools and more at the website:
http://www.ayazuta.com
Promising Practices in TribalState
Relations
Working together, States and Tribes around
the country have developed a number of
promising approaches to strengthening TribalState
relations in child welfare, including:
• Using Tribal-State advisory committees,
forums, and collaborative groups
• Using culturally adapted evidence-based
practices
• Developing Tribal-State court forums and
partnerships
• Developing culturally competent
permanency alternatives Tribal Advisory Committees,
Forums, and Collaborative Groups
• The Tribal Law and Policy Institute along
with the U.S. Department of Justice’s
Office of Victims of Crime produced a
report highlighting 12 promising practices
for meeting the needs of victims of
violence and domestic abuse in Indian
Country. Many of the programs employed
a variety of Tribal-State partnerships
and collaborations to provide culturally
competent services to meet the needs
of Native families and communities. For
instance, the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians collaborated with county and
State agencies in North Carolina to form
the Heart-to-Heart Child Advocacy
Center. The mission of the Heart-to-Heart
Child Advocacy Center is to provide
comprehensive and culturally competent
child abuse evaluation, investigation,
judicial, and healing services. The Child
Advocacy Center model had been
widely used in non-Native communities
but was adapted to meet local Tribal
needs and customs. Heart-to-Heart
utilized a multidisciplinary approach,
bringing together Tribal and Federal
law enforcement, Tribal child protective
services, mental health services, and
medical and educational agencies to
coordinate services for child victims.
Victims Services: Promising Practices in
Indian Country details each program’s
service area and demographics, services,
unique approaches, and keys to success.
Download the full report: http://www.
ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/
victimsrvsindian_country2004/729404.pdf
• Alaska’s Tribal State Collaborative
Group (TSCG) is a partnership of State
and Tribal organizations—Tribal members
and leaders, representatives from Alaska’s
Office of Children’s Services, and other
representatives—that meets three times a
year to discuss issues affecting American
Indian and Alaska Native families involved
in the child welfare system. TSCG works
to improve ICWA compliance, and much
of the group’s work has focused on
disproportionality. Equal representation at
meetings is a core principle of TSCG, and
the workgroup has fostered a common
language among the State and Tribes that
is leading to a better continuity of care for
children and families. More information is
available on Alaska’s Health and Human
Services website: http://hss.state.ak.us/
ocs//ICWA/tscg/tscg.htm
Culturally Adapted EvidenceBased
Practices
• Due to historical trauma, many American
Indian and Alaska Native parents face
stressors such as unemployment, substance
abuse, and depression, which affect their
abilities to nurture and support their
children. California’s Indian Child and
Family Services (ICFS) is making strides in
improving outcomes for Native children and
families while strengthening Tribal-State
relationships. ICFS focuses on adapting
evidence-based practice models to the
Native culture, such as the Incredible Years
(IY) Parenting Training Program, which
has evolved into the SPIRIT Parenting
Program. The SPIRIT program involves
two phases, (1) a historical motivational
interview that places families’ issues within
a historical context and (2) implementing a culturally embedded evidence-based
practice, such as IY, which has evolved over
time to include cultural strengthening.
ICFS’s SPIRIT Parenting Program helps
Native families recognize the effects of
historical trauma and learn parenting
skills to stop the transfer and continuance
of trauma and improve parent-child
relationships. The parenting program
consists of 15–19 weekly, 2-hour in-home
sessions incorporating parenting training
with the Native view that children are
sacred gifts from the creator.
Collaboration with local agencies and
courts has expanded ICFS into a referralbased
services organization. The Riverside
County Department of Public Social
Services provides referrals and contacts
to improve coordination of resources and
care for Native families. Local partnerships
yielded a County Tribal Alliance composed
of judges, local caseworkers, child welfare
managers, Tribal representatives, and
other representatives. The alliance meets
quarterly to discuss training, collaborate
on improving ICWA services, and address
other issues affecting the Tribes and State.
Betsy Davis, Program Evaluator, said that
while ICFS’s focus is on prevention, it
approaches prevention differently than the
standard child welfare view. “Prevention
can be a colonized phrase to people who
have suffered through history, especially
when it’s a history no one talks about. Here,
prevention is stopping the flow of historical
trauma through generations. History is the
problem, and societal blindness is what
continues the problem. When we stop the
flow of trauma, we can strengthen families.”
For more information on the SPIRIT
Parenting Program or other ICFS services:
○ Visit the ICFS website:
http://www.indianchildandfamily.org
○ Contact Renda Dionne, Ph.D.
951.764.3943 or dionner@msn.com
• The Indian Country Child Trauma Center
(ICCTC) at the University of Oklahoma
Health Sciences Center, in conjunction with
the National Childhood Traumatic Stress
Network and SAMHSA, adapted existing
evidence-based treatments to incorporate
traditional healing practices, teachings, and
concepts relevant in Indian Country. Each
program emphasizes the American Indian
value of respecting and honoring children
and incorporates the importance of cultural
identity and individuality. ICCTC provides
training on the following programs:
○ The Honoring Children, Making Relatives
program is based on parent-child
interaction therapy.
○ The Honoring Children, Respectful Ways
program provides treatment for children
with sexual behavior problems.
○ Honoring Children, Honoring the Future
makes use of an evidence-based youth
suicide prevention curriculum.
○ Honoring Children, Mending the
Circle incorporates trauma-focused
cognitive-behavioral therapy adapted for
traditional beliefs and practices.
For more information, read “Adapting
evidence-based treatments for use with
American Indian and Native Alaskan
children and youth,” by Delores Subia BigFoot and Janie Braden, published
in American Bar Association’s Child Law
Practice: http://www.icctc.org/focus%20
article.pdf
Visit ICCTC’s website: http://www.icctc.org
Tribal-State Court Forums
and Partnerships
• The Tribal Court Appointed Special
Advocates program (CASA) is one way to
improve ICWA compliance and strengthen
Tribal-State relations. The CASA program
trains community volunteers to serve as
advocates who speak on behalf of the best
interest of American Indian and Alaska
Native children involved in abuse and
neglect cases. These culturally competent
advocates can be particularly helpful in
cases in which a transfer of jurisdiction is
taking place (Wilkins, 2008). As of January
2012, there were 18 Tribal court programs
located in 10 States.
National CASA features several resources
on its website, including A Guide
to Establishing a Tribal Court CASA
Program Board of Directors or Advisory
Committee: http://nc.casaforchildren.org/
files/public/community/programs/GuidesManuals/0801_tribal_board_guide_0012.
pdf
For more information, visit the Tribal Court
Clearinghouse’s website: http://www.tribalinstitute.org/lists/casa.htm
• In 1994, the Idaho Supreme Court
suggested forming a State/Tribal Court
Forum consisting of representatives
from each of the State’s six Tribes and
members of the Idaho Judiciary. After much
work considering jurisdictional conflicts
regarding claims of State and Federal
governments, the Forum established a
Tribal Court Benchbook. The benchbook
provides a quick reference guide to Idaho’s
Tribal courts for State and Tribal judges,
attorneys, and the public.
View the benchbook, revised in 2005:
http://www.isc.idaho.gov/tribal/
TribalCourtBenchBook_2005.pdf
For more information on Tribal-State
court forums and partnerships, including
a how-to guide, visit the Walking On
Common Ground website: http://
walkingoncommonground.org
• The Native American Communities
Justice Project (NACJP), a partnership
of the Tribal Law and Policy Institute and
the California Administrative Office of the
Courts, launched a program to study Native American victims of family violence. The
project sponsored a series of 17 meetings
that brought together, for the first time,
more than 500 Native Americans and
California court representatives to hear
the voices of Native American victims
of family violence, discuss challenges to
meeting Native American community
needs relating to the State court system
and family violence, and explore solutions
to these issues. The NACJP marks the
first time any California State agency
utilized a community-engagement strategy
that contacted every Tribal government
regardless of Federal recognition.
More information is available on the Tribal
Court Clearinghouse website: http://www.
tribal-institute.org/lists/state_relations.htm
Culturally Appropriate
Permanency Alternatives
Practitioners who provide more culturally
appropriate options in safety and permanency
create greater acceptance and cooperation
from the child’s Tribe and reduce potential
conflicts in case planning. Families may
also be more engaged when there is an
individualized approach.
• Tribal customary adoption is an adoption
that occurs under the customs, laws, or
traditions of the child’s Tribe. In these
traditional adoptions, parental rights
are modified but not terminated, and
important family connections may be
better maintained. In many Tribal codes, in
which “statutory” adoptions are completed
under laws resembling State laws, there
are provisions for validating traditional
or customary adoptions in Tribal courts.
States also are becoming more aware of
the benefits of recognizing Tribal customary
adoption and exploring ways to implement
this practice. Minnesota and Washington
have begun to implement this approach
and educate their State workers.
In 2010, California enacted a law (Welfare
& Institutions Code § 366.24) that
allows Tribal customary adoptions to be
completed in a State court. Under the
provisions of this new law:
○ Birth parents’ parental rights are not
terminated but are modified by terms
specified in the adoption order.
○ Home studies are completed by the
child’s Tribe or its designee.
○ Adoptive placements are approved
according to the prevailing social and
cultural standards of the child’s Tribe.
○ Criminal background and child abuse
registry checks are required as they are
for all adoptive placements.
Tribal STAR has assembled an array of
resources about Tribal customary adoption,
including factsheets for Tribal workers,
county workers, agency memoranda, a
PowerPoint presentation, and sample forms
for Tribal customary adoption orders. These
resources are available on Tribal STAR’s
website: http://theacademy.sdsu.edu/
TribalSTAR/resources/customaryadopt.htm
Conclusion
Protecting American Indian and Alaska Native
children and meeting the goals of ICWA
requires a complex system of child welfare
services that involves many different entities,
including law enforcement, the courts, and
social service agencies. However, when States
and Tribes work together in a cooperative
manner, children and families benefit in the
following ways:
• Improved access to placement and
treatment resources
• An increased ability to address underlying
issues that affect safety, treatment,
reunification, and placement
• Lower risk for disruption in the permanent
placement
• Enhancement of the child’s connection to
his or her culture and relationship with his
or her Tribe.
While collaboration can be challenging, it is
important for States and Tribes to continue
to actively pursue opportunities to form
positive working relationships with patience,
acceptance, and flexibility. Through the
development of cooperative practices such
as forums and advisory committees, TribalState
arrangements, training and informationsharing
opportunities, and culturally
competent permanency alternatives, Tribes
and States have the opportunity to improve
services and more effectively meet the safety
and permanency needs of American Indian
and Alaska Native children and families. In
developing Tribal-State collaborations, both
entities would do well to heed the advice of
Sitting Bull, a wise Lakota ancestor: “Let us
put our minds together to see what life we can
make for our children” (1877).
Acknowledgment: This issue brief was
developed with help and support from the
National Child Welfare Resource Center for
Tribes (NRC4Tribes) and the Tribal Law and
Policy Institute. This update was developed
by Child Welfare Information Gateway. This
document is made possible by the Children’s
Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth
and Families, Administration for Children
and Families, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Suggested Citation: Child Welfare
Information Gateway. (2012). Tribal-State
relations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.
Tribal-State Relations Resources
Child Welfare Information Gateway
Child Welfare Information Gateway’s web section on working with Indian children and families
includes information on ICWA, a list of federally recognized Tribes, a Native American affairs
glossary, and more.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/cultural/adoption/american_indian_families.cfm
National Resource Center for Tribes
The National Resource Center for Tribes is a member of the Children’s Bureau’s Training and
Technical Assistance Network that assists States and Tribes in improving child welfare systems.
http://www.nrc4tribes.org
Laws and Resources
• The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq. (ICWA or Act) provides
procedural safeguards in actions involving Indian children
• Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008
United States Congress. (110th, 2nd Session: 2008)
This act reauthorizes the Adoption Incentives Program for 5 years and increases incentives for
special needs and older child adoptions; gives States the option to use Federal funding to
provide maintenance payments to relatives who serve as “kinship guardians”; establishes family
connection grants to connect foster children with family members and assist them in meeting
the needs of the foster children; and allows Federal funding for title IV-E programs established
by Tribal entities.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_
bills&docid=f:h6893enr.txt.pdf
• Bureau of Indian Affairs Guidelines for State Courts, Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed.
Reg. 67584-67595 (November 26, 1979)
• Code of Federal Regulations, 25 C.F.R. Part 23 (January 13, 1994) (Bureau of Indian Affairs–
Indian Child Welfare Act Rules and Regulations).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title25-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title25-vol1-part23.pdf
(PDF – 239 KB)
• Indian Child Welfare Act; Receipt of Designated Tribal Agents for Service of Notice, 64 Fed.
Reg. 11490 (March 9, 1999)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-03-09/pdf/99-5640.pdf (PDF - 206.9 KB)
• U.S. Department of the Interior–Indian Affairs website (http://www.bia.gov).
Tribal Law and ICWA
• Tribal Court Clearinghouse: http://www.tribal-institute.org
• Native American Rights Fund (has a great ICWA tool online): http://www.narf.org
• National Indian Child Welfare Association: http://www.nicwa.org
• National Conference of State Legislatures:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/statetribe/statetribe.htm
Organizations That Provide Support or Training
(in addition to the groups above):
• Indian Country Child Trauma Center (University of Oklahoma): http://www.icctc.org
• White Bison: http://www.whitebison.org
• Native Wellness Institute: http://www.nativewellness.com
• Native American Children’s Alliance (NACA): http://nativechildalliance.org
• National Congress of American Indians: http://www.ncai.org
• National Indian Child Welfare Association: http://www.nicwa.org
References
American Indian Policy Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.airpi.org/pubs/indinsov.html
Brave Heart, M. Y. H. (1998). The return to the sacred path: Healing the historical trauma response
among the Lakota. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 68(3), 287-305.
Gardner, J., & Melton, A. (n.d.). Public Law 280: Issues and concerns for victims of crime in Indian
Country. Retrieved from http://www.tribal-institute.org/articles/gardner1.htm
Gonzales, A., & Stansbury, M. (2006). Timeline of U.S. American Indian policy and its impacts.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Retrieved from http://aip.cornell.edu/cals/aip/outreach/tiwp/
upload/indian_history.pdf
National Congress of American Indians. (n.d.) An Introduction to Indian Nations in the United
States. Retrieved from http://www.ncai.org/about-tribes/Indians_101.pdf
Richland, J., & Deer, S. (2010). Introduction to Tribal legal studies. (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira
Press.
Rubin, T. (1992). Tribal courts and State courts: From conflicts to common ground. State Court
Journal, 16(1), 17–20,34.
The Uintah Basin TAH (UB-TAH) Project. (2006). History timeline: Selected dates in Indian history
and Indian education. Retrieved from http://www.uintahbasintah.org/papers/aieducation.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). The AFCARS Report: Preliminary FY 2010
estimates as of June 2011 (18). Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_
research/afcars/tar/report18.htm
Wilkins, A. (2008). State-Tribal Cooperation and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/print/statetribe/ICWABrief08.pdf
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/tribal_state.pdf
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/tribal_state.pdf