Family preservation - National Indian Child Welfare Association

AcknowledgementsThe National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) would like to thank Casey Family Programs for their generous supportin making this research publication possible through the National Indian Children’s Alliance (NICA). In addition, wewould like to gratefully acknowledge all of the input and feedback received from individuals, tribal and state child welfareprograms, and federal agencies. Their contributions have helped us to provide accurate and reliable information on theneeds of Indian children and families.NICA was formed in 1999 between Casey Family Programs and NICWA. The goal of NICA is to increase permanencyoptions for Indian children through three targeted project areas: 1) the conduct of research that can contribute to policydevelopment on issues that impact Indian children; 2) the provision of on-site technical assistance and training to tribes toenhance service options for their children and families; and 3) the development of tribal adoption codes that incorporate historicallyand culturally defined practices and the implementation of a campaign to develop additional foster, kinship, oradoptive homes. Together, these three components will provide Indian children with a stronger foundation for achieving thepermanency that all children deserve.A thank you to the Casey Family Programs and NICWA staff who reviewed, provided feedback on, and assisted in editingthe report. They include Lucille Echohawk, Susan Bullerdick, Jody Becker-Green, and Zapoura Calvert.We would like to express our gratitude to those who contributed to this report. Without their cooperation, the work couldnot have proceeded. We offer our appreciation to the American Indian Policy Center for their extensive support over the lasttwo years. In particular, we thank the staffs from Tribal Social Services, Casey Family Programs, Sacred Child, and theNative American Training Institute who took time away from their busy schedules to guide us through family preservation initiativesat Ft. Berthold. W e especially thank Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan elders along with other community members fromthe Three Affiliated Tribes. We realize that you shared your time and knowledge generously and trusted that we could representyour voice. We certainly hope that is the case. However, we could never capture, fully, the spirit of your vision andleadership that give life to the circle of “all our relations.” Chi miigwech!L. Hugh BakerDaryl BearstailKatherine BearstailDarice ClarkRamona DesjarlaitGail DockterChelsea FairbanksJoelyn FooteCasey FoxKelly FoxDesign, typography, and pre-print production: Design Studio SelbyCover photography: Vanessa CalvertLee FoxCandi Gile-AubidBruce GilletteJodi GilletteAlfreda GoodbirdJanet GundersonAudrey JohnsonPatricia LeBeauSadie MannRenee MayerDebbie PainteSusan PaulsonJohn PoupartAnna RubiaJulie ShingobeePaula SnowMary Lou StilldayTom StilldayKim TronesHeather WallisRose White BodySteven WhitehornKyle WilkinsonDenny WolfMalcolm WolfBernadine Yellow WolfRose Yellow BirdJasper Young BearMichael Young BirdIf you would like additional information about the contents of the report, please contact John Red Horse, PhD, at jredhors@d.umn.edu, Cecilia Martinez, PhD, at cecilia.martinez@metrostate.edu, or Priscilla Day, EdD, at pday@d.umn.edu.©2001 Casey Family Programs. Any portions of this document may be reproduced with proper citation: Red Horse, J. G.,Martinez, C., & Day, P. (2001). Family preservation: A case study of Indian tribal policy. Seattle, WA: Casey FamilyPrograms.2

ContentsAbstract 6Executive Summary 7Introduction 10Literature Review 12Sovereignty 12Model Drift 15Dysfunction-Based Family Preservation 17Strength-Based Family Preservation 20Research Methodology 23The Case Study Method 23Life Situation: Historical Glimpses 26Historical Considerations 26Oral History 27Community Voices 35Casework Standards 35Wraparound 36Site Visits 37Family, Cultural Cohesion, and Population Characteristics 38Mediating Structures and Institutional Arrangements 46Survey 56Survey Results 56Summary and Recommendations 61References 64Appendix A: Family Preservation Survey 673

LIST OF TABLES/FIGURESFigure 1: Aspects of Internal Sovereignty 14Figure 2: Network Review Model 24Table 1: Average Rating of Responses of Cultural Markers 57Figure 3: Rated Importance of Selected Knowledge and Skills inFamily Preservation 594

“We still have all the things we need—our culture, our belief systems …We know what is beautiful and what is right. We must understand thateverything is a gift to us—spiritually, emotionally, and physically. We cansee the beauty of nature. Adversity to our people is a gift. We can makeit, but it takes the whole tribal community—everyone.”MALCOLM WOLF“ … the traditions never disappeared. The traditional ways have beenmaintained quietly … ”INDIAN ELDER“American Indians need to learn about our own spiritual teachings. Tolearn about the traditions we need to practice the teachings of ourpeople … . I want Indian children to begin to learn that—the basic fundamentalsof good living about how we deal with the frustrations of life.”INDIAN ELDER5

ABSTRACTFamily Preservation:A Case Study of Indian Tribal PracticeThis is a case study of family preservation at Ft.Berthold in North Dakota. It follows a cultural networkreview model and addresses six variables:life situations, family lifestyles, cultural cohesion,geographic and population characteristics, mediatingstructures, and institutional arrangements.Data were gathered through talking circles andpersonal interviews of tribal elders and socialservice providers. Major conclusions are that tribalfamily preservation requires 1) communityeducation and advocacy; 2) tribal members asstaff; 3) reliance on tribal cultural systems; and4) social work practices based on cultural facilitationand strength-based models.6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYFamily Preservation:A Case Study of Indian Tribal PracticeThis is a case study of family preservation amongthe Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan tribes at theFt. Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. Its purposeis twofold. First, it addresses model integrity.This is prompted by the first-year study thatsuggested a need for consistency across a spectrumof human services with responsibility forfamily preservation activities (Red Horse,Martinez, Day, Day, Poupart, & Scharnberg,2000). This includes normative institutional structuresthat translate cultural values and beliefs intopolicies to guide the design and practice of familyservices. Thus, we specifically investigate waysin which multiple systems complement eachother in services designed for family preservationat Ft. Berthold. Second, it examines familypreservation outside a Public Law 83–280 (PublicLaw 280) state. This is of particular importancebecause of intrusions of county social serviceson tribal family services in Public Law 280 states.This, too, is prompted by the first-year study thatsuggested a tendency toward model drift whenstate or county influences impeded implementationof tribal social and cultural standards (RedHorse, et al., 2000). Ft. Berthold offers a settingin which this institutional tension is minimized.The primary methodology follows a qualitativeresearch protocol of cultural network review. Thisaddresses six discrete variables: life situation,family lifestyles, cultural cohesion, geographicand population characteristics, mediatingstructures, and institutional arrangements. Thesevariables interact to form the landscape for familypreservation. It is this landscape that is our principalconcern, particularly its propensity toadvance or thwart model integrity. The networkreview is supplemented with a limited survey toassess cultural markers, customary practices,knowledge, and skills associated with familypreservation services.The review of literature examines four areas ofconcern. First, we review internal sovereignty andits importance as a support for tribal social andcultural standards that guide family preservation.This is inclusive of natural kinship systems andrelated community supports often referred to asinformal systems. Second, model drift is investigated,particularly as it detracts from essentialguidelines set forth in the Indian Child WelfareAct of 1978 (ICWA). ICWA, with its definition offamily and str ess on tribal cultural standards, isviewed as the policy framework for family preservation.Third, dysfunction-based family preservationpolicy is reviewed. Models following this protocolseek out inadequacies in parental behaviorand often establish adversarial relations betweenchildren and their families. Finally, we reviewstrength-based models in family preservation.These multisystem efforts include wraparoundthat facilitates cultural inputs by involving extendedfamilies, elders, and communities in familypreservation.7

Field data were gathered during three site visits.We held interviews and talking circles with elders,community members, and tribal serviceproviders. These are presented in the sections onlife situations and community voices. The sectionon life situations, the first variable of the culturalnetwork review, highlights two historical capsulesof Indian-White relations over the past 165 years.One provides a general overview of federal Indianpolicy and its impact on tribal lifestyles along withspecific applications to the Arikara, Hidatsa, andMandan tribes. The second presents an oral historytold by Mr. Malcolm W olf, a Mandan-Hidatsaelder and council member for the Three AffiliatedTribes.The section on community voices presents tribalcasework standards along with a cultural wraparoundmodel, both of which organize aroundnatural strengths of extended family systems. Italso presents field data collapsed into theremaining variables of cultural network review.One subset addresses the variables of familylifestyles, cultural cohesion, and geographic andpopulation characteristics; the other subsetaddresses the variables of mediating structuresand institutional arrangements. Essentially, communityvoices document tribal perspectives onextended family, traditional practices, clan systems,and their inclusion with services providedon the reservation.The section on the survey supplements the fielddata with information concerning key culturalmarkers incorporated in family preservationefforts. This includes the use of elders, extendedfamily, traditional healing, and community members.Survey data, in conjunction with site visitinformation, provide important insights into thelandscape of American Indian family preservation.The study closes with a summary and recommendations.These are as follows:• Family preservation requires community educationand advocacy to keep the principles offamily preservation at the forefront of the tribalagenda.• The presence of cultural inclusiveness in governmentcircles outside the tribal network isessential to the ongoing practice of the familypreservation at Ft. Berthold. In this arena ofinclusiveness, tribes are similar to state agencies,and government-to-government relationsare maintained between tribes and thestate.• The use of tribal members as staff in familypreservation services is a critical piece of themodel.• Tribal cultural systems are an essential part oftribal social work.8

• Tribal government knowledge about the statusof family life is enhanced through ongoingcommunication from family preservation staff.• Family preservation is most effective when itrespects tribal family values.• The success of family preservation is a resultof staf f that possess cultural knowledge ratherthan staff that possess formal social worktraining.• Social work must transform itself from a servicesystem based on deficit models into onethat acts as a cultural facilitator.9

IntroductionThis research is the second phase of a multiyearproject to examine American Indian family preservation.Our earlier work focused on family preservationpracticed by Ojibwe tribes in Minnesotaand Wisconsin and presented community voicesthrough talking circles to detail traditional structuresof family preservation that thrived under theauspices of tribal law and custom. In particular,our first-year study cited attributes of humanbehavior common within extended family systemsand noted effective traditional approachesto healing and helping that have application intoday’s arena of family preservation. Finally, itdocumented detrimental impacts of federal policyon American Indian families and communities(Red Horse, et al., 2000).This phase reports on a case study of familypreservation conducted with the Arikara, Hidatsaand Mandan tribes on the Ft. BertholdReservation in North Dakota. It is guided by twodilemmas that surfaced during the initial work.First, we wanted to address a troublesome issueof model integrity. This term implies a need forconsistent applications across a spectrum ofhuman service domains ranging from philosophicalvalues and beliefs that shape family preservationpolicy to service designs that shape practice.Our research, therefore, draws testimonials aboutinstitutional arrangements and mediating structuresthat are key public service strata associatedwith model integrity. Under optimal conditions,these strata are complementary; institutionalarrangements organize around normative valuesinherent to the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefsof society, while mediating structures designsocial services compatible with such knowledge,attitudes, and beliefs. Second, we wanted toexamine family preservation outside a Public Law83–280 (Public Law 280) state such asMinnesota. This need surfaced in response toissues related to model integrity found in the firstyearstudy. In particular, it was clear that PublicLaw 280 contributed to a blurring of internal andexternal domains of tribal sovereignty. Thisoccurred largely because county or state influencesin social service plans ran counter tosocial and cultural standards of tribes.The report is organized into six parts. First, wepresent a review of literature that discussesaspects of internal sovereignty and selectedissues in the field of family preservation relevantfor programs serving tribal people. Second, wepresent the research methodology that is organizedaround six discrete variables of a culturalnetwork review model. This guides field researchfor the case study. Third, we discuss AmericanIndian life situations with presentations of historicalcapsules that include an oral history collectedfrom an elder at Ft. Berthold. Fourth, we presentcommunity voices drawn from the data gatheredfrom key informants during site visits. This sectiondiscusses standards of social work practice,10

cultural applications of wraparound services, andprominent cultural factors in family preservation.Fifth, we discuss findings from a limited surveythat appraises the relative importance ofAmerican Indian cultural markers, knowledge,and skills in family preservation practice. Sixth,we conclude by presenting a summary discussionhighlighting key findings and program recommendations.11

Literature ReviewThe literature review examines issues raised byIndian elders and tribal social service providersparticipating in this multiyear study. In thisrespect, American Indian community voices providea conceptual framework that drives the literaturer eview. Literature was drawn from nationalsources in the fields of health and human services,including journal articles, field reports, programevaluations, and public documents. Fourareas, in particular, are considered: 1) sovereigntyand its application to Indian family preservation,2) model drift, 3) dysfunction-based national familypreservation policy, and 4) strength-basedmultisystems programming.SovereigntySovereignty, in the final instance, can besaid to consist more of continued culturalintegrity than of political powers and to thedegree that a nation loses its sense of culturalidentity, to that degree it suffers aloss of sovereignty. (Deloria, 1996, p. 123)American Indian elders advise that support andpreservation of Indian families rests as much onretaining cultural integrity of tribal life as it doeson the exercise of sovereign political power.Sovereignty, realized through the exercise of tribalcustom and tradition, unfolds as true self-determination.It resides in “the manner in which traditionsare developed, sustained, and transformedto confront new conditions … [and] involvesmost of all a strong sense of community disciplineand a degree of self-containment and pridethat transcends all objective codes, rules, andregulations” (Deloria, 1996, p. 123). Tribal sovereigntycan be classified into two domains: aninternal and an external (Deloria, 1995). Theexternal domain applies to government-to-governmentrelations and “requires full faith andcredit to tribal political institutions, mandates thattribes be informed of pending action in child welfarecases, and recognizes jurisdiction of tribalcourts” (Red Horse et al., 2000, p. 12).A common but misinformed public view is thattribes are entirely subject to state law. Public Law280, passed in 1953, reinforces this perspective.The act transferred criminal and limited civil jurisdictionover Indian tribes from federal to stategovernments. The act originally applied to theTerritory of Alaska (except Metlakatia criminaljurisdiction) along with five states where it wasmandatory: Minnesota (except the Red LakeReservation), Nebraska, California, Oregon(except the Warm Springs Reservation), andWisconsin. In addition, Public Law 280 allowedother states “the option of taking partial jurisdictionwithout tribal consent until after the 1968amendments were enacted” (Melton & Gardner,2001). Several other states opted to assumesome degree of jurisdiction over Indian Country.As a result, authority for tribal child welfare serviceshas been assumed by some states, and this12

has led to proliferation of county intrusions intotribal service responsibilities. A major problemconfronting family preservation is that Public Law280 states exert civil, regulatory, and fiscal controlsover tribal social service programs.Policy intrusions from the past suggest that tribesmust be vigilant against further federal and stateefforts to erode foundations in the domain ofexternal sovereignty as exemplified in Public Law280. Non-tribal institutions routinely constructpolicies and programs designed to influence familyand community systems, often by importingservice models. For example, the first-year studyfound that a serious dilemma is posed whenstate and county service workers control decision-makingfor tribal programs (Red Horse et al.,2000). Such non-tribal institutional domination isillustrated quite well by Deloria who states that“[m]uch of the erosion of Indian sovereignty is notthrough the passage of laws of Congress takingaway powers of self-government, but rather thealienation of Indian community decisions and values”(1996, p. 123).Indian family preservation requires a strong internaldomain of sovereignty that affirms Indiancommunity decisions and values. Internal sovereigntyconsists of three mutually reinforcing systemsthat interact to maintain sociocultural standardsbased on tribal law and custom. Figure 1presents these as nurturing systems, sustainingsystems, and the institutional domain. Nurturingsystems include extended family and kin systems,traditional healing systems, and other tribalcustomary supports. In most aspects of tribalsocial services, families, communities, spirituality,and other natural support elements are integratedcomponents of a holistic nurturing system.Many of these natural support resources, culturaland otherwise, are often invisible to those unfamiliarwith Indian custom, and in non-Indianterms they are commonly referred to as informalcommunity supports. Thus, it is critical that familypreservation workers be culturally knowledgeableand understand tribal nurturing systems.Sustaining systems consist of mediating struc -tures such as tribally controlled service programsand community-based service options. At Ft.Berthold this includes Casey Family Programsand the Sacred Child Project. Collectively, theseprograms advance philosophical frameworks andconcrete services to enact tribal family preservation.Ideally, sustaining systems mediate andtranslate cultural norms and custom into programpractice. The institutional domain includes tribalgovernments, tribal-state compacts, the Bureauof Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Indian HealthService (IHS). Structures in this domain providenormative guidelines and standards for socialwork practice and ought to shape policy in concert with tribal customs to promote complementaryefforts across the three systems. Assuming acomplementary fit, family preservation will enjoy13

14FIGURE 1: ASPECTS OF INTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY

model integrity with multilevel, mutually supportingformal and informal systems operating inaccordance with tribal laws and custom. Withouta complementary fit, tribal political institutions,social service programs, and tribal custom operateat cross-purposes. While cultural traditioncannot be legislated, internal sovereignty isauthenticated when family preservation pr ogramsand other institutional structures operate asexpressions of Indian values and traditions thatreaffirm extended family systems.Model DriftThe Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) institutionalizestraditional Indian family systems inchild welfare policy. It applies to Indian childrenwho are tribally enrolled or eligible for enrollmentand provides guidelines for family preservation followingtribal law and custom (Red Horse et al.,2000). Congress passed the Adoption Assistanceand Child Welfare Act (AACWA) in 1980. This actrequired states to institute programs for preventionof foster care placement and provided federalfunds for family preservation. While AACWA pertainsto all families and children in the generalpopulation, ICWA is specific to tribal families andchildren. The significance of AACWA is that anational program of family preservation was institutedfor the first time in legislative history. AsCourtney suggests:In simplest terms, fa mily pre s e rvation philosophyemphasizes the inherent stre n g t h sof virtually a l families, considers the familyto be the best p lace for c hildren to bera ised, and gives priority to pre s e rving thep e rmanenc e of childre n ’s intimate re l a t i o n-ships with family me mbers when at all possible. In contrast, the philosophy of childp rote ction places the best interests o f thec hild above a l other considerations. Childp rote ctionists often see the family as thep r i m a ry source of danger to children andm a l t re ating parents as unlikely to changetheir abusive behavior. (1997, p. 68)Together, ICWA and AACWA set the stage for amajor reorientation in child welfare with emphasison family support and preservation. Kelly andBlythe (2000) state,Most importantly, Public Law 96–272 providedthe opportunity for state and localchild welfare systems to begin to shift fromremedial and reactive systems of removal(as seen by many as ‘too little too late’) tosystems that actually supported familiesand helped them learn skills and acquireresources in a solution-focused way. Thegoal of such systems was to bring familiesto an adequate level of functioning and tohelp them provide safe environments forall family members. (p. 31)Even with this legislative mandate, governmentsand mainstream programs failed to appreciate orimplement the spirit of the law. Distribution offederal resources for foster placement increasedsignificantly in the 1980s. In 1981, the funding15

atio of foster care to family preservation was2 to 1; by 1992, it had risen to 8 to 1 (Nelson,1997; General Accounting Office, 1993).Such evident model drift impacts AmericanIndian families and tribal programs. AACWA is animportant external influence on the institutionaldomain of tribal practice. The experience of Ft.Berthold tribes offers valuable insights into howtribal sustaining and nurturing systems usedAACWA to advance model integrity for tribal familypreservation while national efforts were guidedby model drift. This is of particular interest sincenational policy direction has shifted yet again.Publicized incidences of abuse, child fatalities,and increasing numbers of children trapped foryears in foster care fueled political concerns. Asa result, public opinion influenced policymakersto focus on foster care and adoption as preferredoptions in permanency planning in response tohighly visible criticisms launched at the child welfaresystem. The new solution came in the formof the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) in1997. The purpose of ASFA, in effect, is tostreamline foster placement processes by institutingmore speedy resolution for permanency. Itincludes incentive funds for states ranging from$2,000 to $4,000 for each foster child placed inadoption. While states were given financial incentivesto move children toward adoption, no newmoney was made available for parents strugglingwith family preservation efforts.Recent analyses indicate that the goal of gettingchildren into permanent homes has not beensuccessful under ASFA. A study conducted bythe Administration for Children and Familiesnotes that approximately 117,000 children wereunder public agency care and waiting for adoption(2000). The rights of both parents have beenterminated in approximately 44,000 of thesecases (Stein, 2000, p. 591); in effect, ASFA maybe producing an even less desirable outcome forfamilies and children. Needless to say, children inpoverty and children of color represent most ofthese cases. Stein concludes, “one consequenceof pursuing ASFA’s adoption goals could [actually]be to increase the number of legal orphans byhastening the process of terminating parentalrights when there is no adoptive home for thechild” (2000, p. 591).The impact of ASFA on tribal programs is varied.At its core, ASFA is antithe tical to ICWA and tribalcustom and practice. Natural systems o f extendedfamily, kinship, and spiritua l re l a t i o n s h i p sassume pre s e rvation is esse ntial to re i n f o rce familylife . Whereas AACWA off e red the possibility ofe x t e rnal c ollaboration towa rd tribal goals of familyp re s e rvation, ASFA is contrary to these eff o rts. Aswith other human se rvice initiatives, family policyebbs and flows w ith changing public and politicalc u rre nts. Import a n t l y, ASFA, as an adverse e xternalinfluenc e, puts tribal political and pro g r a ms t ru c t u res to the test eve n though it does nots u p e rcede ICWA provisions. As long as mediating16

o rganizations (tribal programs) and political stru c-t u res (tribal governments) maintain tribal customas an operationa l framework, family pre s e rv a t i o nstands in alliance with tribal nurturing systems ins u p p o rt of Indian families. The Three Aff i l i a t e dTribes at Ft. Berthold offe r valua ble insights onh o w, in a non-Public Law 280 state, tribal programscan rise above na tional mode l drift in childw e l f a re and overcome contemporary po licies o ffamily destru c t i o n .Dysfunction-Based FamilyPreservationTo understand the challenges faced by contemporaryAmerican Indian family preservation, it isimportant to provide historical context of thesocial work profession. In early years, social worktheory and practice geared itself toward mitigat -ing impacts of social and economic inequality onfamily and community life. Settlement houses,along with other community-based organizations,were founded to mitigate family stresses due topoverty and other debilitating structural factors. Alongitudinal review of literature (Bahr, Wang, &Zhang, 1991) found that early family researchwas overwhelmingly focused on addressing negativeimpacts of industrial society on family andcommunity life.By mid-20th century, new theoretical developmentsin psychology and sociology redirectedsocial work toward individualist explanations offamily and social dynamics. This paradigm shiftinfluenced new approaches focusing on individualdeficiencies and family dysfunction as thesource of family crises. Importantly, family policyand practice was less concerned with structuralconditions such as how poverty intrudes uponfamily well-being and more attentive to individualparental and family behaviors. Neither of theseparadigms resulted in positive outcomes forIndian families. Policies were designed systematicallyin both paradigms to deconstruct traditionalIndian family and social systems and reconstructIndian identity in the likeness of mainstream society(Red Horse et al., 2000).In a national arena where family problems areattributed primarily to pathological or dysfunctionalfamily behavior, a natural legal response isto remove children from dysfunctional environments.Families labeled as “inadequate” acquirenegative attributions as markers for family identity.Such labeling puts into motion an adversarialrelationship whereby the child welfare systemviews the best interest of Indian children as separatefrom parent and extended family relationships.The family is clearly seen as deficient andoften comes to view itself as dysfunctional. Thissituation contrasts remarkably with actual experiencesof Indian families at Ft. Berthold, many ofwhich enter into the tribal social services systemas self-referrals because they are actively seekingsupport for managing family crises.17

Privileges accorded to social workers and alliedhuman service professionals in dysfunctionbasedmodels are accentuated when dealingwith American Indian families. Hence, Indian familystructures, kinship networks, customs, rituals,and community resources are routinely overlookedas resources for families. In many ways,the inertia of the child welfare system hasstymied the full potential of family. It is no surprisethat family preservation programs displaycharacteristics of service fragmentation, emphasison family dysfunction, and disconnectionbetween family and community. Cimmarusti(1992) states,… family preservation workers still focusmuch of their intervention effort on themother and abused or neglected child,while ignoring extended family members,partners or others … . They usually conceptualizetheir work as ‘treating the dysfunctionin the mater nal-child dyad.’ Otherfamily preservation workers employ a strictfamily therapy approach, which, in practice,unintentionally neglects to work withlarger systems, outside the family. Theseworkers usually see the value of a systemsapproach but either don’t conceptualizethe need for their intervention into largersystem, or minimize their role in protectingchildren. Still other family preservationworkers think of their work as providingonly hard services or parent education tothe family and fail completely to see thecomplexity of family preservation or theinteractive nature of its various components.(p. 242–243)The gr eatest challenge facing family preservationis this inability of the system to surrender itsdeficit orientation. Reminiscent of research conductedin the early1980s exposing the ineffectivenessof deficit-based approaches, contemporaryliterature is examining family preservation inlight of deficit models of practice. Several evaluationsof family preservation programs concludethat model integrity is undermined by continuedreliance on child protectionist, deficit-based casemanagement.On face value, one would be hard pressed toargue against child protection as a priority inchild welfare. This is obviously a fundamentalexpectation of family and welfare institutions.However, the issue is not whether protection ofchildren is an appropriate objective but aboutwhat role family and children services ought toplay when family crises occur. Cimmarusti suggests,“many workers in child welfare perceivethe mandates to empower families and to protectchildren as opposite and often mutually exclusiveends of a service continuum” (1992, p. 244). Thiscontradiction often exacerbates tensionsbetween tribal family preservation and non-tribalchild welfare workers.The “best interest of the child” standard emergedfrom research around attachment theory, mater-18

nal deprivation, and resiliency (Banach, 1998).According to Dupaix, this standard is used topredict, “which parent and environment is mostlikely to ensure that the child will become ahappy and productive member of society” (1987,p. 655; Banach, 1998). Goldstein, Freud, andSolnit (1973) suggest that when placed in fosterhomes, children will attach to non-biological fosterparents. To explain this phenomenon, theyconceptually construct an artificial family systemcalled “psychological parenthood.” Once a childis removed from home, determination of thechild’s best interest is based upon predictingwhich parents, biological or psychological, willbest serve the child. In concrete terms, the bestinterest of the child standard regards the biologicalfamily, the “psychological family,” and thechild as competing interests. Banach (1998)found that a majority of professionals are highlysubjective in their application of the standard.She also found that statutes “vary widely in thespecificity with which they outline variables thatmust be considered in decision making” (p. 333).Application of best interest of the child is aprominent aspect of ASFA. According to Stein,ASFA “provides that the child’s health and safetymust be the primary concerns for judges whenthey determine whether or not reasonable effortsto reunite parents and children are required”(2000, p. 589). The standard establishes a systemin which parents and children are placed in acompetitive, adversarial position in child welfaresystems and the judiciary must balance interests“of parents to the care and companionship oftheir children, of children to remain with their parents,of the state to ensure child safety, and of arelative or foster parent who is seeking custodyof the child” (Stein, 2000, p. 589).Best interest of the child philosophy is antitheticalto American Indian family preservation. Mainstreampsychological theories of child developmentcompletely ignore Indian cultural factorssuch as kinship networks and other tribal customsin determining attachment and resiliency asphenomena in child development. Tribal practicesof extended family and the significance ofcultural attachment (not merely attachment tobiological parents) are ignor ed, as is loss to thecollective tribal community that results fr om achild’s removal from his or her culture. From atribal perspective, ICWA standards that requireinclusion of extended family, tribal custom, andcommunity standards are appropriate andsupercede deficit models.19

Strength-Based FamilyPreservationRecent research in family and child welfare drawsattention to empowerment or strength-basedcase management methods. This approach identifiesfamily strengths and resources, as well asproblems to be addressed, as focal points for thetherapeutic process. In addition, strength-basedmodels such as wraparound emphasize decision-makingparticipation by family members inthe development and implementation of casemanagement. The goal of strength-based socialwork is to facilitate a process of capacity-buildingwithin families. With this model, it is more importantto support families in making use of extendedfamily and community resources than to deliverprofessional services.In contrast, deficit-based c hild welfare modelsassume that actual provision of services is the e ndgoal. In actuality, providing opportunities forenhancing family skills and self-esteem is far moree ffective than concrete provision o f serv i c e s .Nelson (1997) c oncludes that “although mored i rective strategies deliver goods and serv i c e s ,they do not give families the skills and confidenceto access support on their own, after the conclusionof the brie f involveme nt of the family pre s e rv a-tion worker” (p. 108; Fraser, Pecora, & Haapala,1991; Frase r & Haapala, 1988; Nelson, Emlen,Landsman, & Hutchinson, 1988).Strength-based models confront the underlyingdysfunction-assignment orientation inherent inmainstream child welfare (Berry & Cash, 1998;Early & GlenMaye, 2000; Blundo, 2001;Graybeal, 2001). Tribal family preservation programsutilize an empowerment approach connectingfamilies with a continuum of integrativeresources ranging from internal family supportsto informal community assets to formal services(Napoli & Gonzales-Santin, 2001). In addition,strength-based models reconstruct roles forsocial work professionals from case managers tofamily facilitators. Family members are not passivesubjects but participants in decisions abouttreatment plans; social workers, on the otherhand, are not imbued with special expertise orknowledge about the proper course of action forfamilies. Nelson notes that an essential quality ofstrength-based family preservation is that“empowerment interventions seek to reduce thedistance between professionals and families byallowing families to choose whether to participatein services, by meeting them [families] on theirown ground, and by treating them with respectand courtesy” (1997, p. 109; Powell, 2001).A multisystems approach is another recent trendin family preservation. This model complementsstrength-based practice and emerges out of thefield of family therapy. The multisystem approachhas four levels or sets of relationships that areessential for family support: 1) the family; 2) theextended family; 3) the community; and 4) the20

family preservation intervention group(Cimmarusti, 1992, p. 243; Sviridoff & Ryan,1997). The multisystems approach emphasizesfamily strengths by recasting the cause of familyissues from individual and family pathology toexistence of constraints. It presupposes thatfamilies possess a range of capacities that areunderutilized as coping resources. Such underutilizationis constraining and acts as a barrier tothe full range of individual and family assets.According to Cimmarusti, “the notion of constraintsimplies that living systems are the waythey are because they are constrained frombeing otherwise” and that “abusive or neglectfulsystems are as they are because they are constrainedfrom being some other way” (1992,p. 247). In practice, family preservation identifiesconstraints, removes them, and enables familyaccess to positive functioning. Cimmarusti alsonotes “ignoring the constraints and interactionsof the other systems impinging on a child’s welfarejeopardizes the best laid plans of intervention”(1992, p. 243). Hence, multisystems modelsreturn social work practice to the investigation ofinstitutional and structural impacts confrontingfamilies.This approach does not narrowly define barriersto family well-being solely around individual deficiencies.As the name implies, constraints operateat multisystem levels that may include relationshipsbetween individuals, family members,households, extended families, social institutions,professional service providers, policies, and mandates—allof which impact family life. “The multisystemsmodel does not approach empowerment-protectionas mutually exclusive. Themodel presupposes, instead, that workers canand must protect all the members of the familyfrom violence, and that protection can beaccomplished in a fashion that empowers andstrengthens families” (Cimmarusti, 1992, p. 243).Wraparound is one multisystems, strength-basedapproach that focuses on individual needs andmakes active linkages to communities (Burns &Goldman, 1999). VanDenBerg (1998) indicatesthat wraparound is not a new idea but acknowledgesthat human service professionals have notpreviously used the method in any formal or systematicway. Burns and Goldman (1999) suggestthat a few basic tenets shape the characteristicsof wraparound. These tenets are as follows:• People desire to remain in the community inwhich their support systems reside. Hence,they respond to community-based services.• People have needs that are complex andunique. Hence, they respond to culturallyappropriate services tailored individually forfamilies and children.• People who are most successful in makingchanges to complex needs have a well-developedsystem of support. He nce, they re s p o n d21

to a strength-based model that empowersfamilies, ch ildren, and communities.• People who experience “unconditional care”are more successful in addressing their complexneeds. Hence, they respond to flexibleservices that adapt to their needs.• Wraparound involves a planning process thatculminates in a “unique set of communityservices and natural supports” designed tohelp address the unique needs of childrenand families (Burns & Goldman, 1999,p. xiii). Essentially it uses natural supports,community services, and professionals workingtogether to develop and implement familyplans. Given its essential theme of empowerment,proponents of wraparound recommendthat professionals comprise no more than50% of the family team. Wraparound alsoemphasizes interagency collaboration and anunconditional commitment to the family.Wraparound and strength-based multisystemsmodels mirror longstanding tribal practice. Incontrast to mainstream approaches of removingchildren from dysfunctional families as the solutionto permanency, tribal customs emphasizeremoving the cause of the dysfunction as thepath to restoring health. Yazzie describes this asbringing a “person to good relations in solidaritywith his or her surroundings and self” (1994,p. 181). Solidarity, in this case, refers to helpingthe individual “to reconcile self with family, community,nature, and the cosmos—all reality”(Yazzie, 1994, p. 194). The traditional Indian symbolof the circle represents the healing process.The circle is a “simile of unity and oneness. Itconveys the image of people gathering togetherfor discussion … In a circle, there is no right orleft, nor is there a beginning or an end; everypoint (or person) on the line of a circle looks tothe same center as the focus” (Yazzie, 1994, p.180).In tribal practice, family preservation involvesbringing families in balance with community, spiritual,and other natural relationships. Parents andchildren do not stand alone, either as perpetratorsor victims. Each is part of larger systems offamily, extended family, kinship, clans, community,tribe, and natural world. Yazzie summarizestribal philosophy:… if my relative is hurt, that concer ns me,if my relative hurts another, I am responsibleto the injured person. In addition, ifsomething happens in my community, Iam also affected. I am entitled to knowwhat happened, and I have the right toparticipate in discussions of what to doabout it. (1994, p. 183)22

Research MethodologyOur case study is not intended to evaluate aservice delivery program. Rather, we examinemodel integrity by using a qualitative researchmethod to appraise a community model advancingfamily preservation at Ft. BertholdReservation. We gathered data through talkingcircles, personal interviews, and communityreview. Particular attention was paid to keyinformants who link among discrete social struc -tures, such as tribal social services and CaseyFamily Programs, and who operate with anassumption that they must interact positively toreinforce family life. Hence, a particular programis not studied per se, but synergy across a clusterof programs–a holistic linkage, as it were–isinvestigated as a key element of communitypractice.The qualitative case study is supplemented witha survey of American Indian professionals. A limitedsample frame is used to inform a trendanalysis concerning cultural variables and socialwork practice. It is hoped that such an analysiswill shed light on the importance of cultural variablessuch as language, ritual customs, and spiritualityin family preservation. With this in mind,the survey examines similarities and dissimilaritiesregarding views on social service designadvanced by community practitioners andAmerican Indians with professional training.The Case Study MethodThis case study follows a cultural network reviewmodel (Red Horse, 1982). Figure 2 highlights thesix variables of the model that must be observedin any examination of American Indian communities.The variables are life situation, familylifestyles, cultural cohesion, geographic and populationcharacteristics, mediating structures, andinstitutional arrangements. Each is interactive inthe community landscape and has inherent functionsthat are consistent with mandates of ICWA.In this case study of Ft. Berthold, the communitylandscape is reviewed in reference to these variablesin order to draw attention to the uniquecultural elements essential to family preservationin Indian communities.The first variable, life situation, addresses socialand cultural experiences of tribal communities.This includes debilitating historical events suchas attendance at boarding schools, treaty violations,and removal of children from their familiesthat have intergenerational impact on contemporarylife. The assumed function of family preservationis that historical trauma resulting in soulwounds among American Indians (Duran &Duran, 1995) must be taken into account in thedesign of social services. Equally important,though, social and cultural experience directsresearch to consider important cultural strengths23

associated with tribal histories, origin stories,religion, and language.Variable two, family lifestyle, addresses kin struc -ture and behavior of Indian families. It is inclusiveof households, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents,bands, ritual societies, and clans.Not all tribes have clans per se; however, everytribal group has structures of support thatextend beyond the nuclear family. In a culturalcontext, this allows for consideration of naturalstrengths in extended family systems in whichblood and spiritual relationships abound. Theassumed function of Indian family preservation isthat extended family linkages are fostered tobuild strong r elationships among kin within thisnatural helping system.Variable thr ee, cultural cohesion, addresses thepresence of norms and value orientations ofIndian tribes. This variable draws attention to themaintenance and transmission of cultural markersthat influence motivational behavior and personalitydevelopment. Some of these key markersinclude language, religion, and traditional lawand customs. The assumed function of Indianfamily preservation is that cultural revitalizationnaturally occurs through the use of programsFIGURE 2: NETWORK REVIEW MODEL24

designed to meet social and cultural standards oftribes.Variable four, geographic and population characteristics,addresses environmental conditions andtribal circumstances. This includes the mix oftribes in any given area, proximity among tribes,and remoteness of populations with respect tomediating structures such as tribal services andIHS. These are important considerations at Ft.Berthold because family services need to be sensitiveto similarities and differences among theArikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan tribes. Theassumed function of Indian family preservation isthat tribal differences as well as common tribalexperiences are respected in program developmentand that tribal conditions influence howmediating structures are organized.Variable five, mediating structures, addresses anarray of social services and allied programs availableto tribal communities. While family lifestyle,cultural cohesion, and geographic and populationvariables are concerned primarily with elementsthat interact to form a natural tribal nurturing system,mediating structures address the manner inwhich services are actuated. The most commonmediating structures on reservations are triballycontrolled programs. However, it is not uncommonfor public- and private-sector programswhose operational policies are controlled by non-Indians to also exist in Indian Country. Theassumed function of Indian family preservation isto assure model integrity by organizing mediatingstructures that support cultural cohesion and thenatural nurturing system, namely a continuum ofservices of family care and concern that respectsocial and cultural standards of tribes served.Variab le six, institutiona l arrangements, concern sn o rmative stru c t u res responsible for shaping formalpolicy that reflec ts value orientations o f society. These arra nge ments ought to fo low norm sdrawn from social and cultural standards of tribalcommunities and, as such, set the tone for modelintegrity in human services. It is common forIndian programs to have influences from sourc e soutside the domain o f tribal governments tha tmay not always be congruent with social and culturalstandards of tribes. Such in flue nces includethe BIA, IHS, and federal regula tions, part i c u l a r l ythose designed for categorical serv i c e s .I rrespective of external institutional authority, theassumed function of tribal family pre s e rvation isthat sovereign tribal governments are the principals o u rc e of policy to guide serv i c e s .25

Life Situation: Historical GlimpsesHistorical ConsiderationsAmerican Indian tribes throughout the UnitedStates suffered under federal policies of the 19thcentury. Indeed, Jackson (1995) characterizedthe period’s legacy as a century of dishonor.Following doctrines of racism, America launchedits prototypical deficit model of savagism: non-Christian, non-English speaking, and non-competitivecommunal tribes were targets fordestruction (Adams, 1995; Pearce, 1988). Theywere stripped of historic lands through removalpolicies and U.S. treaty violations. Governmentservices administered under the auspices of trustresponsibility attempted to destroy Indian societiesjust as federal regulations were intent upondestroying the sinews of Indian culture. Tribal religionswere outlawed, and practitioners were subjectto arrest. Boarding schools punished childrenfor speaking tribal languages and disruptedfamily structures by removing children from communities.Outside forces chipped away at triballaw and custom by implementing heavy-handedefforts to assimilate tribal peoples. Theseassaults on culture did not cease with the dawningof a new century. Well into the 1960s, tribeswere ever on the alert to government efforts torelocate tribal members off trust lands and to terminatetribes from federal recognition.The Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan tribes did notescape the historical carnage perpetrated by theU.S. government. Infor mants vividly describenegative impacts resulting from loss of land, language,and cultural ways along with otheraspects of cultural genocide. In 1851, the Treatyof Ft. Laramie restricted tribal movement and seta reservation boundary of 12 million acres. Thiswas not the only assault on their land base. TheGeneral Allotment Act of 1887 1 , which intendedto “civilize” Indians by allotting land as privateholdings to individuals, stripped the tribes of 11million acres. Alleged efforts to eradicate tribalpopulations through germ warfare resulted in themost gruesome outcomes for tribes. As a resultof government issued blankets infected withsmallpox, the Arikara and Hidatsa lost 50% oftheir populations. The Mandan lost over 90% ofits population including six entire clans (Meyer,1977; Pritzker, 2000).The Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan also fell preyto a host of federal regulations outlawing theirlanguages and religions. Such actions tended toerode internal functions of traditional families.Family systems, which consisted of kin-basedsocieties that for generations had served as naturalhelping networks, were severely undermined.The government assaulted these once again in1953 with the building of Garrison Dam.Traditional homelands with kin clustered in villagesalong the Missouri River were dismantled.The lands were flooded, and New Townemerged.26

The psychological impact of U.S. policy in IndianCountry is massive. The legacy of these draconianpolicies on Indian communities has been devastating.American Indians suffer disproportionaterates of alcoholism, mental health difficulties, suicide,violence, school adjustment problems, andout-of-home placement for children. AmericanIndian researchers attribute these conditions, inpart, to the effects of horrendous grief and lossassociated with past tribal experiences. YellowHorse Brave Heart associates these symptomaticbehaviors to the physical and cultural genocideinflicted on Native peoples; she refers to this as“historical trauma” (1999, p. 111), which is transmittedacross generations. Red Horse et al. note,“Constant policies of forced removal, forced relocation,forced assimilation, and internment over aperiod of 500 years can certainly be classified ascataclysmic events in the lives of Indian people”(2000, p. 14). Experiences of the Arikara,Hidatsa, and Mandan, of course, are not uncommonin Indian Country.The cumulative effect of historical trauma hasbeen profound to say the least. One tribal elderfrom Ft. Berthold noted that traditional communities“ … were really close-knit and had communitymeetings. They had feeds. They got together,and they still went by our clan system. [Now]we’re all split up, and that’s a lot of why we arehaving a hard time.”Oral HistoryThe oral history is told by Mr. Malcolm Wolf. Heis a Mandan-Hidatsa elder, spiritual advisor, andtribal council member. He begins with theMandan creation story and moves to the richhistorical tradition of Mandan people. It is importantto stress, of course, that each tribe at Ft.Berthold has its own creation story, and Mr. Wolf,following this caveat, works toward a commonexperience of the Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandanpeople. Hence, he provides a tribal perspectiveon cataclysmic events ranging from smallpoxepidemics to forced relocation that are essentialpieces of Ft. Berthold’s history. Family preservationefforts must reflect an understanding of theprofound impact of this life situation that isthreaded with collective, historic trauma; itshould inform all phases of program planningand service delivery. This understanding opens apath toward healing through another collectivewhich tribal people identify as cultural strengths.Mr. Wolf begins:We tell our story at a certain time of theyear. There is a proper time for it, we donot just tell it any old time. This is how weknow who we are and where we camefrom. This is our creation story, the beginning.I will share with you some of it; someof it I will never tell you. There were twodeities—these were the ones that createdthe world. They were the Creator’s helpersor maybe God himself in physical design.27

But these two deities competed with eachother and became jealous of one another.They were spiritual beings, but they didn’thave any respect.Because of this, Mr. Wolf explains:The Creator came down and saw whatwas here. He went up and brought back13 couples and lodges. They were thearrow people. There are 13 sacred pointsof the arrow. Out of this came the 13clans. The clan system was put in placeby these 13 couples, out of respect formankind.Mr. Wolf also explains relational patterns that arepart of the 13 clans:We have people underground. That’s whyther e is lightning in the ground. There arepeople on the surface and up in the universeas well. We don’t all go to the sameplace; we have a certain area where ourpeople go. It’s close, like a curtain orscreen, just on the other side. They’repowerful.The creation story is important for understandingthe origin and history of the Mandan people andleads to a holistic understanding of the source ofproblems in the community as well as the potentialfor healing that exists from within. “We are livingwith the consequences of the jealousies thatwere a part of the first two deities and the 13couples that came down to help us. It is the reasonwe have right and wrong in the world today.”The creation story is essential to understandingtribal perceptions about challenges and strengthsof community members in the present. A communitymember explains that the Hidatsa andMandan are similar because they both haveSioux ancestry.For the Arikara, we too believe that a lot ofour problems have a spiritual basis. Deathand disease came about because of ourspiritual inattentiveness. Our story saysthat we offered tobacco or smoke to thespirits. But we did not do so for the wind.The wind told us, ‘because you did notoffer it to me, my heart is sore—and youwill be affected by it.’ The lesson learnedis that we have to look at our own spiritualunderpinnings. The core of everything isspiritual.Mr. Wolf affirms this philosophy stating:The original competition and jealousy iswhy we have things like child abuse today.It has come full circle. But, in our way ofthinking, we ask ourselves, are problemssolely that individual’s fault? Or were theyput on him or her by some other being?Was he treated badly when he wasyoung?From a tribal worldview, human behavior is influencedby spiritual forces; therefore, healing interventionsmust be spiritual as well.Tribal conflict with the American worldview, as heexplains, was immediate upon contact withEuropean arrivals and has continued ever since:28

“We came from underground. We are an oral culture—thatis our way. That is why we have a lotof problems because we are an oral-culturedpeople. The Whites, they have a written culture,and therefore don’t understand our way. Weknow what people say is the truth; they don’t.Words are sacred for us.” He describes the characterof native relations, even as the firstEuropeans arrived in the area. “We had foreignerscome—the Catholics, Prince Maximillian, andothers. They made friends with our people, andour people believed them when they spoke offriendship. We were not warlike. We were spirituallypowerful, and we had our own medicines.”Assimilation efforts launched by the U.S. governmentwere as pervasive for the Arikara, Hidatsa,and Mandan tribes as they were for others. Mr.Wolf explains that the conflict between Americanand tribal people gained intensity in the early tomiddle 1800s with the onset of Manifest Destinyand America’s expansion westward. He noteshow various judicial and legislative actions by theU.S. government exemplify the cultural tensionsbetween tribes and Americans. One example isthe Supreme Court case of Johnson v. McIntosh:This case happened in 1824 [sic].Basically, McIntosh wanted land. In theend, that’s what we’re talking about—land. For us, we did not live in a way thatyou owned land. We lived with nature …we came from the earth. White peoplecalled us the ‘don’t know anythings.’ Butwe say no. We know about a great manythings. We get up every morning and prayto a higher power. We go hunting for ourfamilies. We hunt, we walk, we run. Weare physically fit. We don’t eat our foodfrom a can and get sick. You (Whites)don’ t even know where the sun comesup; it doesn’t matter to you because itpasses you by. But for us, when we facethe sun, it will recognize us. And if wespeak, it hears us. We have a name innature.During this time period, another event occurredamong the Hidatsa: “It was also in this year,1824, when the Hidatsa people here were askedto sign a paper—a peace document. This is nocoincidence that in 1824 court cases weredeciding about land, and we were being askedto sign these documents.” U.S. colonizationefforts intensified throughout the 1800s.“In the 1860s, that is when things became difficult.They took our ‘bundles’ away from us. Theytold us, ‘Now, this is how things are going to be.’They took our buffalo, which was our foodsour ce, away.” In spite of this, many things couldnot be taken from Indian people. Principal amongthese are their spiritual and moral tradition:We know what is right and what iswrong—we know that. We believe you ifyou say something—your word is good.But that’s what went wrong. They tookever ything of ours, and either abolished itor put it aside. That’s when our culturebegan to suffer. Then the Dawes Act tookplace.29

Assimilation practices were reinforced by developmentof policies that attempted to destroy thefabric of Indian life. Mr. Wolf cites, in particular,impacts of the General Allotment Act of 1887.The Treaty of Ft. Laramie in 1851 set aside 12million acres for the Arikara, Hidatsa, andMandan. But the Allotment Act took away 11million of these and reduced the reservation to 1million acres: “The philosophy of the Dawes Actwas to make us own land and wear civilizedclothes. My grandfather used to live in a differentway, but they wanted to change all that.” Heviews this blatant disregard for Indian tradition asa destructive act:We came from the earth itself, the earththat we walk upon. We’ll go back to it. Ifyou believe that you own the land, andcan do with it what you want, it will be difficult.We don’t own it, it owns us in a way.If the land doesn’t grow food, we can’teat. If the spring doesn’t run, we do nothave water. But we are polluting everything—ourair, water, even our animals. Assoon as a calf is born we give it a shot sothat it will bring us more money. Nothing isnatural anymore. But we better be carefulbecause nature is watching us.The oral history moves into other painful events:One of the worst devastating things wasthe smallpox. There are still old peoplewho r emember hearing of those who sawit first hand. The story is that the blanketscame from Ft. Riley, Kansas, around 1836or 1837. The government had infestedblankets, wrapped them up, and put themon the train and riverboats. Old mentalked about this. They told us how themilitary brought the blankets and passedthem on. The blankets were yellow, greenand red—four different colors [sic] and hadthe symbol “U.S.” on them. The governmentofficials told us when they gave usthose smallpox-infested blankets, “we’regoing to help you because this is the kindof people we are.”These barbaric practices penetrated deeply intothe soul of Indian life, and the effects on theArikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan are omnipresent.The Mandan, for example, permanently lost atraditional resource:We have seven clans today. In the beginningwe had 13, but the smallpox wipedsome out. My grandma’s clan had tried tolive their way in a place north of here. Butthe federal government told them that theyhad to come back and accept this land. In1894, they were brought back. My greatgrandmawas 11 years old, and sheremembered how they had to walk 90miles in two days. She said it was dustyand windy. It was a sad day for us.Despite this history—so common to manytribes—Indian people do not retreat from commitmentsto American society. They display collectiveintegrity and act with moral courage.Hence, Indians enlist during times of militaryaction despite government policies intent ondestroying their way of life. “Even so,” explains30

Mr. Wolf, “we continued to try and be good people.In the wars, we weren’t inducted, but wewent, because we believe we have to defend ourlife, our culture, our people. It is our duty.”Destructive policies did not end in the 19th century.Gar rison Dam, built in the 1950s, wasanother devastating event impacting the Arikara,Hidatsa, and Mandan. Before the dam, cooperativevillages lined the river. These villages wereaccessible to each other and formed an intricatenetwork of community relations, support, andcommercial centers. One elder notes that previousto the dam, “welfare programs were not necessary;families took care of each other.”However, construction of the dam flooded alarge part of Ft. Berthold, divided the reservationin half, and isolated communities from eachother. The ability of village residents to reach outand support one another was severely undermined.The government provided compensationto the tribe for the dam, but Mr. Wolf notes thatthe amount was miniscule in comparison to thesocial and environmental damage inflicted uponthe villages: “The area that was flooded was ourprime place—rich river-bottom soil. The governmentgave us flood money, a certain amount ofdollars per acre that amounted to about $.50 to$.70 per acre. That was what we were paid.”Government policies and practices have certainlytaken their toll on the Arikara, Hidatsa, andMandan. Mr. Wolf sadly recounts these impacts:We went from a way of living that wasbased on friendship, family, and clanshipto something different. You acted in certainways. You didn’t walk in front of yourbrothers or sisters, look at them eye toeye, you respected the spiritual being. Butnot today, today we’ve changed. Today,we’re getting ready to make money. We’vegotten away from living and doing as afamily.The U.S. policies of devastation altered a tribalway of life and tried to weaken the spiritual baseof Indian people. “They soured our way. Wedidn’t lie, steal, and cheat one another. This ishow we were. The belief systems were powerful.”Even as Indian communities changed and adaptedover the years, White attitudes did not.Racism still impedes acceptance of Indians andIndian traditions by the wider society: “The prob -lem is that even though we sometimes haveadopted White ways, Whites don’t treat me thesame as they do themselves. I’ve heard thingslike, ‘we don’t serve Indians.’ Well, my responseis, I’m sorry, but I don’t eat Indians!”Yet strength and understanding emerges as aresult of the history of hardship. According to Mr.Wolf, “there are things that we don’t do anymore,and then we wonder why things happen to us.But everything has a reason. This is what wehave to teach our children.” Hence, the capacityto survive devastation is as strong and availableto today’s youth and families as it was in times31

past: “We still have all the things we need—ourculture, our belief systems. We have it, but wedon’t trust it and believe it like we used to.” Torecoup cultural strength, Mr. Wolf advises that itis essential to reconnect with one’s spirituality.This has been and continues to be the source ofhealing for Indian tribes.Our prayer is powerful. It is your physicaland spiritual guidance. When you use itbadly, you affect your spirit. We knowwhat is beautiful and what is right. Wemust understand that everything is a giftto us—spiritually, emotionally, and physically.We can see the beauty of nature.Adversity to our people is a gift. We canmake it, but it takes the whole tribal community—everyone.Federal policy aimed at tribal destruction, ofcourse, failed. Indian people were not eliminatedor deculturized. Efforts to stigmatize Indian traditionsalso failed. Mr. Wolf recounts with pride theconnections Indians maintain to cultural heritageand spirituality as well as the importance placedon the 13 original clans:We call our place homelands, not reservations.Reservations imply that you are puttingus on hold to deal with us later. Butwe have laws, education, ceremonies,social structures, and technology—all of it.We build technology by nature and spirituality,not just scientific equations. Anexample is our arrows. Arrows are technology.But in our culture, you made thearrow and you prayed.Historic cultural strengths recounted by Mr. Wolfhave important application for today’s communities,and efforts to sustain them continue at Ft.Berthold. In fact, youth seek out tradition as theyencounter new, complex issues. A common misperceptionin today’s social service profession isthat mainstream clinical tools are required forhealing. But, in fact, Mr. Wolf advises that tribalcommunities have a long history in the art ofhealing and used practices that led to healthyfamilies and community interactions without suchtools and formalized services: “We used to knowwhen and how to speak, and that was withoutsocial services.” Communities also provided ethicalguidance and support about processes oflearning and healing:We have to remember that it’s easy to dosomething that is not good. But if youwant to do something that is good andright, it takes a long time. It tries yourpatience as a man and as a woman. Inthe beginning, we had a way of communicating.We were told to watch what yousay to somebody. The word of mouth issacred. That’s why people get sick today.We must always be careful about what wesay. And just because we don’t knowabout the consequences that occur as theresult of our bad words or bad deeds,doesn’t mean they don’t happen.Lessons from traditional culture are as necessaryfor today’s families as they were before outsideinfluences intruded upon them. Extended family,32

clans, and bands are critical to individual andcommunity well-being. However, traditional societiesare not well understood by non-Indians. Asa result, Indian people continue to struggleagainst efforts to destroy family structures. Infact, survival of tribal society is nothing short ofphenomenal. The Mandan, for example, grieveover the loss of six clans, but the remainingseven are a vital and fundamental part of today’slife. Clans and extended family systems areknown and practiced at Ft. Berthold: “Our clansare very complex, and it is hard for others tounderstand. I have a grandpa that was born lastweek. Age doesn’t have anything to do with it.”Clans and kinship systems also serve as asource of support, discipline, guidance, and education.Mr. Wolf explains thata clan brother can say things to you, andyou can’t get mad. If you do somethingwrong to somebody—he can tell youabout it—it may even be in a large group.This is a form of discipline. We never hadto beat children; we never hit thembecause we always have known that childrenare sacred. There are other morepowerful and appropriate ways to guideour young.Clans provide a physical and emotional resourcenetwork for Indian families and children. Adagesmade popular in recent years among non-Indianshave always been a part of Indian communities.They have known for centuries that “it takes a villageto raise a child.” “Your clan comes from yourmother. We don’t have a word for cousins oraunties and all that—we only have brothers andsisters. With our clan brothers and sisters, youalways have family—there are no orphans, andyou are never alone. We are all related.”Behavioral norms set by cultural standards clearlynote that generosity and respec t should be givento your clan brothers and sisters. Material accumulation is not an ultimate goal in life: “You mustbe generous a nd ta ke care of your c la n bro t h e r sand sisters. It is important tha t you give thingsa w a y. If you love your family and your clans, thenyou must be gene rous with them. In the end, yourgood actions will come back to you.”Mr. Wolf further explains that human arrogancealso makes humans fallible:My grandma told my sisters, if you havechildren you take care of them. Don’t youhit them. Even a she-dog that is all stragglywill take care of her pups. Humans aresupposed to be more intelligent. But evena dog has us beat. Anything you do or sayhas its consequences. You won’t get awaywith anything. Someone will face the consequences—ifnot you, then your childrenor family. You can hurt people in manyways, directly and indirectly.Resurgence of traditional culture in the ThreeAffiliated Tribes is demonstrated in a number ofways. One important example is the infusion ofculture into Sacred Child, a wraparound project33

practiced at Ft. Berthold. Mr. Wolf explains that,“the Sacred Child Project took our traditions andused them. In a way, it shows that we have finallywoken up about our ways. An important part ofS a c red Child is that you neve r give up on someone.He is your bro t h e r, or she is your sister. Wenever give up each othe r. You stick with them untilt h e y ’ re okay. It’s a lot of hard work.” He a lsopoints to a new era of tribal youth and family programs that is re t u rning to the principles ands t rengths that served tribes so well in the past:“In Sacred Child, we’re using our culture and ourolder people. We have to go back to who we are . ”Offering his guidance, Mr. Wolf explains thatrebuilding Indian families and communities willtake patience, a common vision, and a collaborativeeffort. Part of the challenge for tribes is torevive traditional ways and to move away fromthose values aspired to by American assimilationpolicy. He states:I’ve been told that if one person does right,then there ’s 500 doing wrong. Tha t’s whatwe have to face . To d a y, we are not using allthat was given to us. We don’t even talk ton a t u re anymore. Whatever we have as ours t rengths—our ceremonies, our stories—we need to use them. We need to use ourp r a y e r. Remember, it’s because of thesethings that we are still here .Positive steps are being taken in this direction.Tribal services in child welfare, family preservation,and health care are tur ning to traditionalvalues and practice. Youth ask to learn aboutfamily, clan, and language. Equally significant,human service professionals are finally realizingthat traditional culture is real and is a valuableresource in the community. Mr. Wolf notes,“when I first came back, I went to Casey FamilyPrograms and asked them how I could help. Iwas told they had their psychiatrists and therapists,and they didn’t need me. Now it’s different.They want to work with me and use our culturalstrengths.”Guidance and humility are traits of Indian spirituality.Mr. Wolf explains, “It’s important to rememberthat everyone has something to teach you.Even the person that seems like they have nothingto offer. In our world, there are things weknow about, and there are things we will neverknow.” But perhaps most importantly, tribes havetheir own social and moral history that guidesactions of today. Recounting the tragic smallpoxepidemic, Mr. Wolf advises, “It could’ve wiped usout, but it didn’t. Four Bears [our leader of thetime], befor e he died, sadly said, ‘I once calledthese people friends. Now, as I am going out todie, even the wolves won’t come and touch mebecause I have been the friend of the Whiteman.’ ” It is essential not only to remember tribalhistory but also to keep a tribal consciousnessso that the tragedies of the past will not be revisitedin the future.34

Community VoicesThe life situation at Ft. Berthold might haveseemed hopeless to many outside observers.However, in ways uncanny to tribal people, theArikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan retained their traditionalknowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. As aresult, tribal programs were positioned to recastmainstream social work protocols by injectingtribal standards into family preservation.This section uses community voices to articulatesocial and cultural standards that have guidedefforts at Ft. Berthold. We present data gatheredfrom 50 key informants during three site visits:one visit to get clearances to conduct researchand two visits to gather data. The key informantsrepresent a spectrum of tribal people, includingpolitical representatives, human service workers,elder organizations, and community members.Hence, impressions of family preservation from acommunity standpoint are blended with specificprogram observations from human service professionals.Data-gathering methods included personal interviewswith elders and young adults who arefamiliar with family preservation efforts and talkingcircles with informants drawn from tribal socialservices, Sacred Child, Casey Family Programs,and the Ft. Berthold Elder’s Association. Theirresponses are collapsed into three units: 1) caseworkstandards developed by tribal social services;2) wraparound processes that abide by tribalstandards in family preservation; and 3) site visitswith the initial presentation of data subsumedunder network review variables of family lifestyle,cultural cohesion, and geographic and populationcharacteristics, followed by data subsumedunder network review variables of mediatingstructures and institutional arrangements.Casework StandardsCasework standards and methods used by tribalsocial services are modeled after culturalstrengths. As a result, service planning followsfour casework standards to implement familypreservation practice at Ft. Berthold. This facilitatescultural efforts to recapture tribal lifestylespreviously disrupted by Whites. The standardspreclude social service principles common tomainstream ideas of nuclear family systems andintroduce a framework that is consistent withAmerican Indian extended family systems andrelated philosophies around the circle of life.First, a strength-based standard guides casemanagement. Consideration is given to familypredicaments, but family preservation personneldo not get entrenched ideas about family deficits.Rather, family difficulties and related stresses areexamined through a lens that clarifies existingstrengths and available resources in extendedfamily systems. As a result, casework is reframedin important ways. Cases, for example, are notmanaged; rather, care is coordinated. Socialservices do not remove children from family35

systems on a routine basis. Instead, they arecharged to organize healing processes throughthe mobilization of family resources as a naturalhelping network.Second, practice methods empower culture.Emphasis is placed on extended kin systems,and this reaffirms traditional thinking regardingfamily and tribal responsibility. A kinship strategythat evokes a natural healing network combinedwith cultural empowerment gives life to key provisionsof ICWA and supports the cultural andstructural integrity of family life.Third, casework intervention is consistent withsocial and cultural standards of tribes on thereservation. This also complies with provisions ofICWA. In most circumstances, this supplementsnarrow thinking around nuclear family modelsand places tribal knowledge, attitudes, andbeliefs regarding extended families into a dominantposition to help guide decisions around the“best interests of the child.”Fourth, a kinship connection exists betweencasework staff, communities, and clients. Thisleads to open communication and culturalawareness between social service providers andextended family units. Simply speaking, kinshiprelations weave throughout program domainsand communities on the reservation. This situationchallenges some ingrained assumptions ofsocial work practice; however, kin serving kin iscommon in American Indian communities andrecaptures protocols common to traditional familybehaviors. Project staff are quite aware of a needto maintain confidentiality in casework, but thiscaution does not impede communication withinextended kin networks if a client wishes.Precautions are taken in case planning to allayany abuse of this standard. For example, kinrelations on staff recuse themselves when sensitivecasework decisions involve their own family.WraparoundWraparound is a mainstream family and childcenteredcasework method that organizes supportteams consisting of family members andhuman service professionals. Ft. Berthold’sSacred Child Project uses wraparound butreshapes it to fit tribal customs and to reinforcestrengths of extended family systems. Again as acompensatory effort to undo historic intrusions,family support teams are tuned in to importanttraditions that contribute vital inputs to individualcare plans. These teams may consist of 4–10people, but at least 51% must be family or nonprofessionals,such as elders or clan members.The goal of wraparound is to provide familieswith enough formal and informal support so thatchildren can remain safely with family. Each planincorporates “life domains” that family and childrenchoose as areas upon which they want to36

focus. These domains include spiritual, family, livingsituation, financial, educational and vocational,social and recreational, behavioral and emotional,psychological, health, legal, cultural, andsafety.When life domains are selected as areas offocus, community resources that can assist inthe plan of care are identified. These generallyinclude extended family, clan members, culturalactivities, and ceremonies. Importantly, the familychooses community resources that can be ofassistance, and service workers facilitate connectionto these resources. Thus, each plan ofcare unfolds as a unique blend of tribal customand cultural strengths to support family life.A principal feature of tribal wraparound is a beliefthat “there are no failures.” As one staff membernoted, “These are our relatives; we don’t give upon our relatives.” An essential theme of caseworkat Ft. Berthold is that when one member is struggling,the whole community suffers. Hence, tribalwraparound strives for a cultural fit that mirrorstraditional beliefs and values about children, families,and community. The spirit of tribal wraparoundis bolstered by the considerable successof the model, and this spurs efforts to incorporatestrength-based philosophy into all levels ofpractice.Site VisitsAll of the key informants were impr essed with therapid shifts in community life once family preservationwas launched. Since its beginnings in theearly 1990s, community and organizationalcapacities increased in major ways. First, tribalsocial services slowly, but steadily, increased itsnumber of staff. This allowed family preservationservices to expand and led to improvements inthe quality of service as contacts between workersand families increased. Second, Ft. Bertholdis a Casey Family Programs site that focuses onlong-term planning and kinship care. At Ft.Berthold, Casey Family Programs staff are hiredfrom the community and, therefore, are knowledgeableabout Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandancustoms. This knowledge and experience naturallycontribute to congruence between programsand community standards of family practice. Asone Casey Family Programs staff member stated,“We just operate that way; we don’t have to thinkabout it. We use our tribal protocols becausethat’s the way it is.” Third, but most important inour observation, cultural resources have beenreclaimed and utilized as the foundation for familyand community well-being. This led to aggressiverecruitment of Indian staff for tribal programs andreceived a major boost with development of theSacred Child Project. As one co-founder states,“[It] is not a program, it is a philosophy.” The37

Native American Training Institute (NATI) definesSacred Child as an outcome-bound system of“care coordination” that is “community based,individualized, strengths based, culturally competent,in partnership with families, team driven,flexibly funded, balanced with professional andnatural supports, committed to unconditionalcare, and collaborative” (Native American TrainingInstitute [NATI], n.p.d., p. 2).As key informants reflected on the past decade,they overwhelmingly noted that tribal social services,Casey Family Programs, and Sacred Childcomprise a core family preservation system.Social service administrators identify the followingfive factors that are key to the success of familypreservation: 1) shifts in philosophy from “childprotection” to family support; 2) development ofa seamless system of community support; 3)political advocacy; 4) social service staff drawnfrom the community; and 5) collaborative partnershipswith state government. At the core ofthese factors is the cultural history and practiceof the Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan.Family, Cultural Cohesion, andPopulation CharacteristicsCommunity informants consistently note that traditionalculture has been retained over the yearsdespite historical hardships. Kinship systems,clans, language, and spirituality are importantcultural strengths that serve as beacons forfamily preservation. Clans are fundamental tofamily and community relationships; hence, it isonly natural that they are a part of any formalintervention connecting families and children:“The clanship is really helpful for keeping familiestogether. Like for instance, if somebody introducesme, they will say that’s your brother, he isfrom your clan. That’s a person’s identity andsense of belonging.” Survival of clanship systemsis a tribute to the strength of traditional culture,despite massive intrusions on the tribal way oflife. “We have our ‘clanship system’ in place, andwe adopt other tribal people. We haven’t lostthat, and it’s a highly complicated system, andit’s still strong.”Family systems mirror those of other tribes andconsist of a much broader set of relations thanamong non-Indians: “Most non-Indians look totheir family as their mother and father. In ourcommunity, or other Indian communities, we lookfar more widely. Family goes beyond our immediatefamily to all our other relatives—to grandmothersand grandfathers. The Indian communityand Indian relatives are more extended.” Oneelder states, “The idea of raising children aloneand by yourself is foreign. It’s very stressful to bealone or independent in raising children. To beable to be with aunts, uncles, and other family isa time of release, relief of stress for everyone. Noone worried about how much it cost to feed orsupport children; it was just what you did.” A38

social service worker added, “A single-parenthousehold does not mean single-parent familythe way it does with others. For us it becomesfrustrating because all the experts on family areurban researchers or beltway policymakers. Theydo not know about us or our strengths.”The impor tance of extended family is both practicaland philosophical: “There are differentstrengths in families. It’s important for children toconnect with all the strengths, whether it’s swimming,or fishing, or beadwork, or whatever.” Thisdiversity of family strengths, along with its naturalarray of social supports, is integrated into serviceprogramming for families and youth at Ft.Berthold. A service provider notes, “We alwaysask them to tell us who they go to when they feelbad or who they might want to talk to, an aunt,uncle, or grandmother. Then, as part of the planwe try to rebuild connections with families.”Many community members identify the strengthof women as an important asset. One states, “Allthe time growing up I saw how important it wasto have a strong mother. I just grew up believingthat it was a natural thing to be a strongwoman.” This tradition carries forward to today. Acommunity member states, “Strong women arepart of our cultural tradition. Historically, womenhad control over the household. For example,they build the earth lodges while men picked thesites.” Community members further describe thebalance of traditional gender roles: “Each hastheir strengths. Women are the organizers.Mothers organize the extended family for feasts,gatherings, and all that. They provide the cohesionfor the family. When you lose that, it reallyweakens the family.” An elder reinforces this byexplaining, “We are matrilineal. A healthy familydepends on a strong woman. If the mother isokay, then the family is okay.” She went on toadvise that women are developing new roles asleaders. This emerging role is part of their traditionalpredictions. These are, essentially, propheciesthat have passed from one generation toanother. They are part of oral tradition recountedby elders through storytelling and ceremonies.Tribal languages are also necessary for familypreservation because they are essential forunderstanding traditional values and culture:“The Native language is very important. The mostpredominant language on Ft. Berthold is Hidatsa,and you can hear the elders speaking [it]. We justhad a prayer day last week, and the grandmothersand grandfathers would not talk to you inanything other than Hidatsa.” The importance oflanguage transmission is noted in institutionalprograms for language renewal in education andsocial programs on the reservation. One serviceprovider recounts that “language is being practicedin the schools. All the schools on the reservationhave Native language, and I’ve noticedwith my grandchildren—they are learningMandan.”39

Ft. Berthold is home to three different tribes.Each has its own culture and history, but theycoexist as a united political entity. “Here we havethree distinct tribal cultures and yet each of thecultures is kept alive through language and ceremonies.This can sometimes be challengingbecause there is not a common language,except English, that we can use at public meetings.Most tribal members have mixed blood buttend to identify with one tribal culture.”Historically, the Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandanwere subjected to what is perceived by tribalmembers as a deliberately caused smallpox epidemic.More recently, the construction of theGarrison Dam by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers disrupted community life. Old villageson the reservation were destroyed and a “NewTown” constructed.What Garrison [Dam] did to our generation,and to generations before us, was toshow us how to survive—that must havetrickled down in our blood. It was verydevastating. You hear it in some of thevoices and see it in some of the faces ofour grandmas and grandpas. Theyremember Garrison. So out of that wegained survival strengths. It’s just a differentway we deal with it now. We survivedthe smallpox too, we survived that—we’resurvivors.Unlike many areas where there are efforts todevelop a cultural flavor and inject it into establishedservices, culture unfolds as an organicphenomenon at Ft. Berthold and is retainedthrough the oral tradition. Culture simply emergesinto social programs: “Local people are aware ofand know [Indian] culture … but there’s not anywritten standards.” Another participant says that“our cultural connections were never lost; everyfamily had their own bundles.” Another notes,“We just went underground. Men would leave for[spiritual] ceremonies and never tell anyone,sometimes not even their families. There are spir -itual healers all over the country, Canada, SouthDakota, because we are all connected. But Idon’t think our culture was ever lost. Maybewe’re just talking about it a little more now.”Informants see negative consequences to abandoningcultural knowledge such as ties to one’sclan and extended family system: “We get awayfrom that, and we think we’re all strangers, forwhatever reasons.”The community recognizes that fundamentalchanges occurred in family and children serviceswhen Ft. Berthold developed its own programswith tribal people hired as staff. One participantstates, “It’s all part of the same pattern. At onetime we were punished for speaking our languageand learning our ways. Professional [non-Indian] people didn’t understand us. Once ourown people came in, well, our culture is still partof them, part of their family.” Another states,“most of the social workers that are hired here40

[Casey Family Programs] or by the tribe are tribalmembers. It’s a given that you just know what ishappening here.” Using tribal people as staff intribal programs is important. This facilitatesefforts to create and implement tribal culturalstandards for staff, and programs unfold as anatural process, which in turn cultivates trustfulrelationships among staff, family, and community.Ser vice staff use traditional standards and protocols.They also routinely seek advice aboutappropriate practice from elders: “Elders tell usyou shouldn’t be doing that. Local people areaware there are not written standards. Mostsocial workers that are hired here today are fromthe tribe; it’s just a given that you know [tribalways].” One tribal worker states, “It kind of goesback to unwritten community standards. If [staff]are not from here, it does create some difficulty. Ifyou are from here, half the people you work withare your relatives. You don’t give up as easily, orit isn’t just a job. It’s your family, your community,you’re in it for the long haul.”Service providers do not see themselves as separatefrom the community or external to familiesthey serve. American Indian communities havefluid relationship patterns that are unfamiliar anduncharacteristic to “professional” boundaries setup for social worker/client relationships in mainstreamcommunities. One service professionalstates,Most of our workers are tribal members,and others have married into the tribe. Ithelps because you know the community;it’s yours. Just knowing a little backgroundof the families before you go in there, youknow what is happening. And, even if youdon’t know the family, you ask somebodyfrom there to go with you and introduceyou to the family.Professional detachment is evident when socialservice staff are not from the tribe: “The childprotection workers that are not from here experiencehigh burnout, and there is high staffturnover, so there’s no continuity. One-half of thepeople you work with are your relatives. Youdon’t give up. You have a lot more invested.After all, they are our relatives.”Tribal culture has gone unrecognized as a valuableasset in mainstream social service programsand thus has been devalued both historically andduring contemporary times. Family preservationat Ft. Berthold reverses this trend by reinvigoratingtribal culture and traditions: “Lack of understandingby non-Native organizations and non-Native worldviews combined with an internalizedoppression of our people make a powerful barrierto using traditional practice organizationally.Today, we keep saying, ‘we save families andchildren, one at a time.’ ” Cultural traditions areresurging among the Arikara, Hidatsa, andMandan. “Now we’re teaching that our [clanand/or family systems] are back. Even at the41

kindergarten level, these kids are learning theirclans and their language.” Significantly, the impetusfor families and communities to reconnectwith traditions is originating with youth. Today,“young people are rebuilding; women are havingnew roles. A lot of these changes were meant tobe and are part of the predictions made by theelders. Children that are getting in trouble are thecanaries in the mine. If we don’t respond, thechildren will die.”The philosophy and va lues articulated by elders,community members, and service providers at Ft.B e rthold mirror findings in our first-year study ofOjibwe tribes in Minnesota and Wisconsin (RedHorse et al., 2000 ). While every tribal culture andh i s t o ry is unique, core values and norms seem totranscend tribal diff e rences. The prominent role ofelde rs in community life is an examp le. It is importantto note that being an elder, as one communitymember states, “has nothing to do with age. It’show hard you have worke d to learn the things youhave learned. And how you treat others in thec o m m u n i t .” y One worker explains that elde rs arere s o u rces to the community: “The elders are pre t-ty good and open to talking to us when you take akid over there. If I need to know something—aquestion, they’ll talk to me—they have better ideas—it helps me to ma ke a better connection to thekid. I try to utilize the ir knowledge—a lot of timeswe don’t utilize them as much as we should.”Another service worker states,We get a kid, a lot of them, that peoplesay are bad. But when you get a kidaround an elder, their whole attitudechanges. They get up and help them.Then I know the kids are not that bad;they have the teaching inside. I see that,and that’s where we can make a connection.We can talk with the kids, start workingwith the kids that way. It goes back tocommunity standards about who knowswhat and what knowledge and advice wecan use.Formal training in social work is considered helpfulat Ft. Berthold, but most providers regard culturalknowledge, including connections to elders,as vital to their work and personal or professionaldevelopment. One service provider states, “Wetry to use kinship relationships and our ownmores. An important one is respect elders, haverespect for people, listen to your mom, dad, orwhoever is taking care of you.” But of equalimportance, cultural learning by service providersis seen as important for themselves as well as forthe youth and families with whom they work.I share my experiences with the youngerones by using storytelling and tribal games.We work together to he lp identify their clana nd their Indian na me if they have one. Orif they don’t have one, a nd they want tohave one , we provide the information thatthey need. It helps them to ha ve their ownsense of belonging and the ir identity formation.We all need to know who we are ,a nd I am also learning as I go.42

A service provider reiterates this process by saying,“We help young men and women just bysetting them up with elders to just talk. A lot ofsimplicity is involved. It’s just about connectingyoung people to that world.”Self-esteem and healthy relationships are rootedin cultural identity. Elders are irreplaceable in thisprocess. “It’s also about having role models, peopleyouth can identify with, feeling good aboutbeing an Indian person. It’s about having thatpersonal connection and that personal relationship.Being there for somebody.” Bringingtogether young people and elders benefits everyone—youth,elders, and providers.Culture is not an afterthought or an add-on toservice programming. One service professionalstates, “Cultural competency isn’t the foundation.Culture is the foundation, and everything elseneeds to fit into that. Culture isn’t a piece, it’s thewhole.” Yet, tensions are still created as a resultof mainstr eam social service orientations thatcontinue to invade tribal programs. Staff with formaleducation bring back the values and practicesof mainstream human services and try toimplement these for tribal programs. These areoften in conflict with tribal protocols at Ft.Berthold, but because staff are from the community,they are able to mitigate negative impacts ontribal practice. For example, mainstream preoccupationwith written rules and standards areless important in traditional practice. These arenecessary if and only ifa lack of understandingor commitment about appropriate cultural waysof working exists.One of the biggest tensions stems from familymodels used by professionals. Mainstream modelsorganize for nuclear family cultures andadvance standards, practice methods, and performanceaccountability consistent with thesesmall family units. Indian culture, however, has itsown way of building common understanding andexpectations. Tensions become evident even intribal programs; one service professionalobserves, “there is a conflict between mainstreamsocial service practice even when practicedby Indian workers.” Mainstream social workpractice assumes that standards or protocols donot exist if they are not written. Reliance on formalguidelines to evaluate behaviors has ledmainstream social work to overlook strengths ofinformal systems. Even using the term “informal”is inaccurate according to one service provider.“We have natural helping systems. They are not‘informal’ systems. ‘Informal’ suggests that it isn’tas important as ‘formal’ systems or that there areno standards or protocols. But that is not true.”Another provider says, “We have more of a naturalorientation toward family preservation and culture,rather than an official one.” A communitymember echoes these thoughts, “Yes, therearen’t many shingles out in Indian Country.”43

Moreover, another service provider adds,“Working with the Native community requires thatthe workers take the time to visit and re-establishrelationships based on the tribal norms of thecommunity. This is different from other modelsthat seem to want you to have professional distanceand clear boundaries with the families thatyou work with.”At Ft. Bertho ld, natural helping systems are fundamentalto the philosophy of tribal programs, and itis understood that traditional knowledge cannotbe ta ught through mainstrea m methods:“ Traditional culture and our ceremonies are notspoken about. We know that if you te l aboutthese things, you will shorten your life.” A tribals e rvice provider adds, “It’s important to learn thecultural protocols. The y are very complex. A waywe traditionally learned these things is by includingc h i l d ren in a l our events. Children are always pre s-ent in a l activities and ceremonies. This is the waythey lea rn.” In tribal culture, children learn thro u g ho b s e rvation, and community life constantly re i n-f o rces norms and connections to Indian identityand culture. Yet non-Indians often misconstru etribal ceremonies a nd events. For example, oneelde r states, “Our c ommunity powwow is a formof cultural support, but the mainstream doesn’tsee that. They think it’s just a re c reational activity.In fact, it is a place to heal, to reconnect, a placew h e re our culture is practiced. Here we feel goodabout being an Indian person, and it helps to formIndian identity in our childre n . ”The root cause of tensions between Indians andnon-Indians is a difference in values and professionalnorms. At Ft. Berthold, service providersare not thought of as experts or directors of familychange. Rather, they are helpers, or relatives—whether clanship or familial—who can offer oneset, but not necessarily the definitive set, of supportiveresources for families. A young serviceprovider summarizes this philosophy:One of the hardest lessons I’ve had tolearn is traditionally, we are taught to lookat things a certain way. We may haveknowledge, but we can’t interfere in people’sdecisions or the choices they make.A lot of social work is based on interferenceor pity. We are not supposed to pitypeople for the circumstances they are in.There’s a reason why people go throughthings, and we should not take the poweror authority to interfere with their learning.An elder adds, “No matter how much you wantgood things to happen, if it’s not time, it’s nottime.” Traditional teaching reinforces the holisticnature of family health. As one elder states,“When any one part of the tribe is unhealthy, thenthe tribe is unhealthy.” He perceives service programsand staff as facilitators connecting clientsto other formal, perhaps more importantly, naturalsupport systems: “If the family doesn’t havethese things available to them, then we can bethe connectors.”44

Like Ojibwe tribal members in the first-year study,elders at Ft. Berthold speak of honoring theintegrity of traditional healing practices:In our culture, things are kind of private.Traditional healing is usually not somethingwe talk about openly. If there is somethingwrong, or if there is a wedge between amother and a father, or between a childand a mother. That’s when a spiritual personcan come in. It does happen, but it’sprivate. We all know in our communitywho can do what and how they can helpwithout going public and advertising.That’s part of being culturally appropriate.Simplicity and naturalness guide communitymembers and service providers who talk aboutusing elders, clans, extended family, and spiritualhealers as supports for families. Rather than discretesets of “resources,” community and cultureare part of life-long learning, and families are notstigmatized because they experience crises intheir lives. One service provider states, “Hardshipis natural. It is a normal part of life. I think of thedisruption to our families that has occurred, havingto move geographically, alcoholism, not beingallowed to speak our language. These have beenpart of our lives.” An elder recounts her urbanrelocation experience as well: “I remember whenwe relocated to Denver. That was a very badexperience. Everything you have heard about it istrue; it was really terrible.”Inasmuch as traditional culture has survived asan important part of tribal life, community membersalso speak about disruptions and disconnectionssome families have experienced thathave impacted the lives of youth. Ft. Bertholdhas witnessed its share of youth in troubled situations.Several community members suggestthat these youth are the leaders in bringing disconnectedfamilies back to traditional roots.Through the process of supporting children, familiesare healed. In fact, one service providerstates, family preservation at Ft. Berthold is “notchild-centered, it’s family-centered.”We had a grandmother who had a troubledyoung grandchild who kept gettinginto trouble. The family, including theextended family, got tired of him andwanted to get rid of him. They were madat her for keeping him. When we spokewith her, we asked her who could comeand participate in our wraparound programwith her. She broke down and saidno one wanted to. But in this case, healingwas not just in terms of the child. Itwas for the family, to r econnect themselvesto each other and to the youth andgrandma.This child was reconnected with his clan, and therest of the family slowly came back together asthey saw positive changes in the child. Clanshipand extended family is a natural resource andemerges in many different ways in programs andservices at Ft. Berthold. In this case, the youthwas supported and family members were reconnectedto each other and to the value of mutualsupport.45

Mediating Structures andInstitutional ArrangementsFormal efforts in family preservation at Ft.Berthold began in the early 1990s. At that time,according to a former child services director, tribalsocial services had three caseworkers on staffand approximately 185 children in an out-ofhomeplacement. By 1999, social services had22 staff and only 18 children in foster care. Thisnumber was further reduced to nine children inan out-of-home placement by 2001. This dramaticchange occurred because the director andothers worked persistently to add staff andexpand programming. As staff were added,social services paid more attention to opencases, revisited criteria for child removal, andestablished family supports that made it possiblefor most children to remain with family. Additionalresources allowed staff to shift away from mainstreamdeficit models of practice and to focuson cultural and community strengths.Lack of staff and services in the early years led tolarge caseloads, and foster placement became anorm: “Children were taken out of their homesfor just about any reason. For example, if parentsdrank over the weekend. Once these childrenwere in foster care, they were left there. A bigpart of the problem was the lack of trained staff.”Few efforts were made to reunite families.During the process of building tribal capacities infamily and child welfare, a fortuitous developmenttook place in the non-Indian sector. With theelection of a new governor in the early 1990salso came a shift in the state tribal agenda. Asone informant stated, “We had a new Republicangovernor, and although we had different reasonsfor doing what we did, we worked toward thesame goal of developing tribal capacities.” A keyelement in the transition was development of atribal-state accord formalizing the governmentto-governmentrelationship between the state ofNorth Dakota and tribes. A former Indian AffairsCommissioner states,This represented a shift in that now it wasclear that state officials really did want towork with tribes in new ways. As a result,the line staff was put on notice to trysomething new. One-thir d of stateresources were in its human servicesbudget, and a good proportion of that wasgoing to tribes. But the old way of doingthings wasn’t working. It just made sensefor tribes to build their own infrastructure.Several structural changes occurred during thisperiod that enhanced the capacity of tribes toadvocate for empowerment of their programs.For example,the Lt. Governor sat as chair of theChildren’s Services CoordinatingCommittee and had a willingness to reachout to tribes. All this opened up the door[in addition to regional and interagency46

coordinating structures] to a counterpartat the tribal level and created the opportunityfor dialogue with state/tribal/regionalcoordinating councils. In the process,tribes were designated state agents to beable to get funding.In conjunction with this new attitude by thestate’s governor, a cooperative and supportivestate commissioner emerged. 2 “I can’t overestimatehow valuable it was to have direct access[to the state commissioner]. If we called, we wereput straight through to him; if we went to seehim, we always got to see him immediately. Hecame to the reservation, and we went to see himat the state.” A positive state-tribal relationshipresulted from his presence, and this led to strongcoordination and communication between tribesand the state. It also opened an avenue ofresources necessary to develop important infrastructuresat Ft. Berthold as well as with otherNorth Dakota tribes: “Quarterly meetings wereset up, and tribal workers were reimbursed usingIV-E money. This not only brought us togetherwith the state, but it brought different tribalgroups together to coordinate more effectively.Many of the relationships that were developedthen continue on today.”These events at the state level complementedactions taken at the tribal level. Informants attributethe critical changes to the increased capacityof tribal leadership.It is also important to emphasize the criticalimportance of leadership at the locallevel. There has to be a vision to want tochange. If you don’t have leaders and staffthat think about the bigger picture [andabout building upon culture], things won’tchange. Local leadership really had to bethere and committed to developingchange.An informant reiterated, “the tribes that have real -ly been successful are those that have a broadvision—it’s hard but it’s worth it. When you trynew things, it raises eyebrows. Social serviceshad to take risks. Tribal services changed waybefore Casey. This was a conscious decision. Itwasn’t a natural trend at the time. We just knewthat we didn’t like what was going on.”In conjunction with state and tribal initiatives, tribalinvolvement on a number of levels also influencedchange. As one tribal member states,“Our families are scrappers. They were the onesthat said things have to change. They told usover and over again, ‘We’re not letting go of ourkids.’ ” A responsive Indian Affairs Commissioneralso provided key assistance. A service providerstates,She kept tribes informed of everything thatwas going on. She would fax, mail usever ything about hearings, impending legislation,and all that. It was critical becausenow tribes were informed and could gatherup support for our position on things.47

Tribal people were given the opportunity toparticipate in a way that we had notbefore. Tribes became more aware thatthere were things going on that impactedthe tribes.Reflecting on the evolution of Ft. Berthold programs,one service provider notes,Maybe 13 years ago, caseworkers hadover 180 cases [spread across two workers].We couldn’t get to everybody, wewere just putting out fires—going to courtand all that. Slowly we began to get moremoney from the state to hire more workers.The state had a lot of programs inplace already, and the tribe had minimalmoney for employees. So the caseworkerswould remove the kids and put them infoster care. There were no services torefer the parents or the family to. Whathappened was that gradually over a periodof time through a family preservation grant,we hired family preservation workers towork with families and hired intensivehome workers to work more intensivelywith families and to provide more culturallyappropriate services to help with the family.The workers are from here, and knowthe family and know the culture to providemore appropriate services. We got parentaides, and some of the monies we gotfrom the state were matched by the tribeto hire our own workers that are from thetribe to work. We have more money tohire local people.Once tribal social services moved out of a reactiveor crisis mode, staff were able to develop astrengths-based method of practice. Under thisapproach, families, even those in crisis, areknown to have internal strengths. The strengthsmodel is now a central operational philosophy oftribal programs:We build on strengths. We start where thechild is by letting them choose and buildon relationships. We provide them withsupports to help the relationship flourish.Maybe ‘Uncle Joe’ can take the child fishingor hunting, helping that child to gainskill and competency in something. Whilethis is going on, the child is also learningabout a healthy lifestyle.Interestingly, within the context of extended family,many cases are self-referrals. Tribal workersindicate that 40%–50% of reports received bytribal social services come from family members.In contrast to non-Indian communities, families atFt. Berthold self-r efer because they have“exhausted their resources. When the familyreports, it’s because they are asking us for help.Mostly they’ve already tried different things.”Another service provider reinforces this view.A lot of times, before we even get areport, the family has already intervened.The extended family has already donewhat they could to keep the family together.By the time child welfare is notified, thefamily has already done a lot. I think thereare a lot of cases where the families havealready taken care of the situation, andthey never do come to our attention.48

Tribal political structures are obviously importantin the development of family and children’s services:“One of the unique challenges of workingon the reservation is the political turnover. On Ft.Berthold, this happens every two years. Eachtime a new council is elected, you almost have tostart over educating new council members.”Tribes nationwide are economically stressed,and, as a result, family and children’s servicesoften lack operational funds. This situation oftenconfronts Ft. Berthold. But even if funds areavailable, constant turnover in staff and administrationposes a challenge. Hence, any successfulstrategy to build capacities in family preservationmust focus on increasing staff, maintaining relationshipswith tribal council members, providingstaff training, and developing preventative andsupportive services. As political relationshipsmatured at Ft. Berthold, social services gainedtribal council support for all aspects of programdevelopment.Casey Family Programs at Ft. Berthold is anotherimportant mediating structure. It operates independentlyfrom the tribe but maintains ongoingcoordination with tribal staff. It provides permanencyplanning services for children and familiesincluding adoption, long-term foster care, kinshipcare, guardianship, and family reunification. Itsoperational goals are to help children stay in thesame home while receiving support from an arrayof services and to facilitate community partnerships.For example, in addition to case management,Casey Family Programs staff act as a liaisonbetween families and schools; monitor educationalperformance; provide support groups forteens; offer skills-building programs, such asindependent living for older teens and peer relationsfor younger children; and initiate culturalcamps for families. Parents may also receiveservices through support groups and relatedactivities.At Ft. Berthold, participation in Casey FamilyPrograms is voluntary for families. According toits acting director, most families receiving servicesare “self-referrals looking for financial orresource supports.” Staff are mostly tribal members,and the program offers a continuum ofservices ranging from skills-building for elementarychildren to transitional services for youthmaturing out of the system. In past years, parentswere required to transfer custody of childrento Casey Family Programs in order to participate.Currently, the program follows a procedure thatgives relatives guardianship. This reaffirms commitmentsto extended family and, at present, fivechildren are in foster care at Ft. Berthold while 43are placed in kinship care. This change is importantbecause it eases cumbersome and rigidrules that are part of foster care guidelines.Guardianship does not impose requirements forminimum hours of training and reduces ongoingmeetings and visits between families and socialworkers. One staff states, “There is less case49

management in guardianship. Before, it was verydifficult for our families to meet all the requirementsof foster care on a long-term basis. It justbecomes too much.” Moreover, criteria that conflictwith cultural norms of the tribe, such as terminationof parental rights or preclusion of auntsor uncles as foster parents, can be avoided.Guardianship families must still meet expectationsstipulated in individually tailored agreements.One staff member explains,Kinship families have to sign a partnershipagreement. Each agreement is drawn upspecifically for each family; sometimes thiscan take a while, but it’s worth it. If fosterfamilies continually fail to abide by thepartnership agreement, then we step inand do something. If we find there is noother resolution, the child is adopted.Placement parents were concerned withthe shift to guardianship. Families wereafraid of losing foster care payment; butwe can work around it. Services can staythe same in guardianship. We try toinvolve everyone in it.This process seems effective. One of the mostimportant observations of this study is that Ft.Berthold does not follow national trends for childremoval or adoption. To the contrary, the guidingprinciple is to make removal a last resort. Whenasked for recommendations they might have forother programs, one service provider offers,My advice is that when you’re making adecision about a child, you move the childonly if absolutely necessary. Get into thehome, do some work, provide services,and get involved. But don’t jump the gun.Look at the child, the parents, and the relatives.When we were growing up, wedidn’t have these programs, now we havethem to be able to help the family keeptheir [sic] dignity. Respect their home. Wehad counties come in and remove children—wedidn’t have programs that wehave now—we need to act as relatives,giving them respect.Another service provider adds,Even if a family has pro b l e m s — t h a s t ’ theirf a m i l y. The family loves the child, and theyhave the conne ction there. When you takec h i l d ren out a nd put them in a foster home,t h a t ’s a real serious move—it does damageto a child. This has to be considere d carefu l l y. The family might be having a crisis,and get them help—that’s the most importantthing. Kids don’t do well in foster care ;they need to be with their family.When asked about ways in which tribal serviceworkers organize as a team, one staff states, “It’sjust working with each other on a day-to-daybasis. We have to stay focused on what ourgoals are and what we’re trying to accomplish.Making decisions each day not only for our tribalpeople but for ourselves to stay healthy.” Anelder added, “We work together as relatives. Tome, that works. They are my grandchildren. I amtheir grandfather. We know each other; there areenough people out there who still know this.50

We’re still close here. I take their direction as arelative also.”Another key mediating structure, the SacredChild Project, also augments family preservation.Its main focus is to keep children with the familyby serving youth up to 22 years of age who areinvolved with two or more systems (such as lawenforcement, child welfare, education, and mentalhealth) and who are in imminent danger ofremoval from their homes. Staff for Sacred Childis drawn from the community. The project intentionallyavoids becoming just another social serviceprogram with yet another set of professionalsdirecting families to services. Such an approachin the long term produces negative results. “Werealize that some people have moved towardprogram dependency. What’s really important isto reconnect them to their community and naturalsupports and to develop ways to exchangehelp with one another.”Sacred Child first developed as a demonstrationproject with a grant from the Center for MentalHealth Services. It is administered by the UnitedTribes Technical College with a purpose of developingand implementing a system of wraparoundfor all North Dakota tribal communities. As aresult, the Standing Rock Sioux, Spirit LakeSioux, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, andthe Three Affiliated Tribes of Ft. Berthold developedwraparound projects to meet specific tribalcommunity needs. From the onset, Sacred Childallowed each community to fashion a projectbased on their tribal strengths.At Ft. Berthold, Sacred Child is both a foundationto re-establish tribal cultural standards to guidesystems of care and a resource to expand suchefforts throughout reservation communities. Astaff member describes Sacred Child as multidimensional:“It is an effort to develop a tribal systemof care, establish a continuum of services,develop community relationships and culturalappropriate services in order to enhance parents’access to services, and to give them a voice.”Perhaps most significantly, it drives the incorporationof cultural supports into social service systems.Deborah Painte, director of the NorthDakota Sacred Child Project, explains that inSacred Child, “it’s not how you integrate cultureinto services but how you integrate services intoculture” (NATI, n.p.d., p. 1). A Ft. Berthold staffmember adds, “The heart of Sacred Child is thateach family develops who they want to be.”Wraparound is an accepted social work interventionin general use by professionals. However, itsapplication at Ft. Berthold differs from applicationsin the general population because wrapping“the children with their extended family” emphasizescultural strengths. One of Sacred Child’sfounders states,The research indicates that if the kids areout of community over 90 days, it hurtsthem. People have been trained; we’ve51

een brainwashed to think that theanswer to problems is to send the kidsaway. The whole purpose of the grant wasto institutionalize keeping kids with theirfamily, to try to wrap the family with theirextended family and their naturalresources system.A key element of Sacred Child is that it givesyouth decision-making responsibility: “We tr y todevelop real individualized plans according towhat the family and child want.” Another providerreiterates that as children identify their wraparoundteam and participate in the developmentof case plans, they serve as catalysts to reconnectfamily with traditional culture. “Our kids havebeen bringing us to our culture again. We askthem what they want, and they’re the ones thatsay they want to use their culture. They’re theones that are bringing us back. In the beginning Iwas surprised because they were choosing iteven if their parents didn’t.”Sacred Child also values non-interference. If disagreementsabout a course of action or differencesin belief systems arise, the operating principleis to empower youth and families to makedecisions about their future. One service providerstates,Sometimes parents have different beliefsystems, but they always let the childrenchoose for themselves. I’ve seen a lot ofwraparound where the parent has a lot ofauthority but the child doesn’t. It’s differenthere; the child actually makes the choices.Sometimes, they’ll choose what their familydoesn’t believe in, but the family doesn’tdisagree. What we found is that the childgrows and grows when they can maketheir own choices.Another service worker notes,We don’t go in and tell them what tochoose or who to go to. We have theNative American Church here and aboutten Sun Dances. But we don’t tell themwho to go to; they have to make thosechoices. That’s how we use culture—it’sreally not because we chose culture butbecause we gave the choice to the childand the choice to the family. Then wedevelop plans around it. We have a WRITteam that will receive the plan, and thenever ybody from the major agencies—substanceabuse, mental health, child welfare—reviewsevery plan of care to makesur e it’s okay. It’s a whole system thatdeveloped.The acronym “WRIT” refers to the wraparoundreview intake team. It is composed of staff fromagencies, parents, and other family representatives.Its main function is to review applicationsand review plans of care developed by the familyteam. A service provider captures this process:Youth set up their own plan. We thenrespect what they want, instead of whatwe say. It’s important to get people theyrespect involved. If, for example, a kidchooses to want to become more involvedwith traditional culture, then we facilitate52

connections for them. The focus becomesthe child again, but the whole family benefits.They relear n who they are and practicetheir culture.Self-determination and self-choice is citedrepeatedly as a critical factor for success: “Theycan pick their own team. Agency people can beon there too if the child and family say it’s okay.But if they don’t, maybe they can’t deal with itright now—so let’s say they don’t want anyonefrom education, well that’s okay, we just movethem towards having power to make decisionsfor themselves.”Building from values and norms of traditional culture,wraparound is an important connector tonatural support systems for youth and families.“We have a strength—we know who our clanmothers and fathers are. We can ask, is thereanybody you want on your team?” An inherentstrategy of the program is “to utilize elders andspiritual leaders.” Service providers indicate thatthis encompasses a range of activities based onthe needs and choices of the families. “We takeyouth to traditional ceremonies. Talking with eldershelps the youth heal themselves. We utilize alot of resources—elders, extended families.Sacred Child is playing a big role in bringingfamilies together.”Sacred Child provides opportunities for familiesto reconnect in a healthy way. This sometimestakes interesting paths. One service providerrecalled a case in which a family stopped comingto appointments:When I saw them again, I was hesitant toask. But I did. I asked how they weredoing and [said] that I was wondering whythey dropped out. They told me theydidn’t need the program anymore. Theyhad come together as a family to do whatneeded to be done. That is what it is allabout. We are just here to facilitate.The principle of self-responsibility is clearlyunderstood when looking at the Sacred Childprocess. For example, wraparound participantsare presented with 12 domains of life skills: cultural,financial, residence, family, social, behavioral,education, safety, legal, health, crisis, andspiritual. Initially, children and families addresstwo of these domains. From such a range, theirselections may not necessarily correspond toareas that professionals see as difficulties. Inplacing decision-making power thusly, empowermentand self-development is respected. This iscontrary to most programs wherein “professionalexperts,” not families, make decisions about familyneeds. In this way, Sacred Child respects thecapacity of youth and families to analyze theircondition and make decisions about how tomove to a healthier stage.According to Sacred Child staff, many youthselect culture or spirituality as one of theirdomains. One staff member relates that “youngpeople want to know about their culture.” The53

learning that occurs among tribal youth and familiesis significant for the community:Our teaching tells us that the young peopleare going to bring us back to the circlethat is broken. We are once again going toour spiritual leaders. We have learned thatif people don’t understand who they are,they can’t fix their lives.A critical component to the success of SacredChild is that project staff see themselves first andforemost as tribal members with cultural ties tofamilies with whom they are working. Describinghis role as a parent coordinator, a staff memberexplains: “In our culture, we are all related. WhenI work with families, I try to introduce myself inthat manner. I have a good idea of how the kinshipsystem here works. We are all brothers andsisters, grandmothers and grandfathers.”The ultimate goal of Sacred Child is to develop along-term natural support system. This differsdramatically from short-term intensive servicestrategies that, on a repetitive basis, may encourageservice dependency. The intent is to providea respectful, comfortable, and trusting environmentfor families and children to begin a healingprocess. One staff person notes,The toughest thing we have to learn ispatience and unconditional care. That isthe most critical thing at Sacred Child. Thekid is bound to mess up, not just once ortwice, but sometimes many times. We haveto go through the ins and outs with them.Sacred Child also employs a community team. Itincludes individuals, community members, andorganizational staff committed to a communitywidevision for children and families. Its purposeis to bring together resources and other assetsfrom the community, including community organizations,formal mediating structures such asCasey Family Programs and tribal programs, parents,youth, spiritual leaders, and local businesses.As such, Sacred Child forms a circle ofextended family, clan and community supportthat typifies Indian cultural traditions. Parents andfamilies discover a wider set of cultural resourcesto call upon, and communities revitalize culturalvalues as strengths for use by future generations.This reverberates throughout the community:Elders have been feeling isolated becausether e was no one to talk to. The dam cre -ated problems for us because it cut thereservation in half. People don’t visit oneanother anymore. Used to be you didn’tneed “advocates”—used to be that youcould use a neighbor, but you can’t dothat anymore. We haven’t been takingcar e of each other the way we should.Now we are using elders again. They arecoming into the schools and are beingincluded in teaching younger generationsabout culture, history, and the way of life.Wraparound is an assets model that allows tribesto employ natural strengths and resources oftribal culture. In the holistic Indian worldview,everything is culturally and spiritually intercon-54

nected. Thus, wraparound advances a paradigmshift toward strength-based, community-basedpractice in mainstream social work; the circle itorganizes, however, is and has always been acentral part of Indian life and healing. It is used incommunity decision-making and dispute resolution.It balances the voice of participantsbecause each member of the circle has a legitimateand equal role in the process. The tribalwraparound movement replicates Indian methodsfor support and preservation of children,families, and community. This confluence ofIndian culture with non-Indian models creates aunique opportunity for tribes to access federal,state, and private foundation resources and toretool mainstream models in accord with tribalcultural practice. A tribal community memberreflects on the irony of this situation: “For allthese years, the federal government spent hugeamounts of money to try and change us and todestroy our families. Now they are providingresources so that we can preserve our families inthe traditional way.”Cultural reframing of programs has provided Ft.Berthold with a continuum of competent programsto support family preservation. Working intandem, tribal social services, Casey FamilyPrograms, and Sacred Child advance a successfultribal model. Over the years family preservationhas thrived because:• state support is available for networking,funding, collaboration, and linkages;• new resources led to increases in trained staffand needed programs;• tribal council support resulted in efforts tokeep political leaders aware of child welfareneeds at Ft. Berthold;• community perceptions shifted from negativeto positive views of agency, services, and staffin child welfare; and• training initiatives provide continuous upgradingof staff and administration.In recent years, tribal programs have benefitedfrom paradigm shifts by human service institutionsthat have moved from deficit models tostrength models. Hence, family preservationefforts at Ft. Berthold incorporate the philosophyand cultural standards of the Arikara, Hidatsa,and Mandan tribes. The effectiveness of usingcultural strengths is apparent in the diffusion oftraditional philosophy to other tribal programs onthe reservation. One service provider, reflectingon this phenomenon, notes that “we also havehad cross-training of everyone, so that we coulduse this process not only in the Sacred ChildProject, but anybody could use it.”55

SurveyA survey instrument was developed and administeredto a small sample frame drawn from anational pool during the study (Appendix A).Survey respondents were professional serviceproviders for tribal family preservation and childwelfare programs who participated in our firstyearstudy and who had agreed to respond inthe 2001 study. Staff turnover was significantbetween the first and second year. This is notatypical in tribal programs because many staffmove to other positions through promotion ornew career options. This situation influenced ourreturn rate, and we received 17 responses representingnine tribes: Ojibwe, Sioux, Apache,Tohono O’Odham, Santee, Blackfeet, Ute,Ponca, and Oneida.This sample frame, however, suited our purpose;we never intended to gather data to draw inferenceson tribal programs nationwide. We simplywanted a supplement to our case study at Ft.Berthold. Hence, the survey is akin to a pilotstudy with a limited function. It provides an initialframework for a trend analysis that, taken in tandemwith the case study, informs around importantcultural features in American Indian familypreservation. The survey was designed to assesstwo factors. First, what is the relative impor tanceof cultural markers and customary practices infamily preservation programs both from a standpointof their actual use and from a standpoint oftheir ideal use? Second, what is the relativeimportance of selected skills and knowledgerequired for tribal family preservation practice?Survey ResultsRating the importance of selected culturalresources allows us to create a picture that contrastswhat is incorporated in current practicewith what ought to be used in family preservationservices. Table 1 lists mean scores for each culturalmarker from an “actual” and “ideal” perspectivealong with a residual score. A lowerresidual score suggests less variation betweenactual and ideal ratings for each cultural marker.The cultural resources most highly rated in actualtribal programming are immediate family, extendedfamily, tribal foster parents, and elders, withmean scores ranging from 2.13 to 2.27. Indianservice professionals and tribal council supportshowed the next highest mean scores with 2.47and 2.60 respectively. School staff participation,state/county service providers, and tribal communitymembers had mean scores of 2.93 to3.00. An important rating to note is that respondentsstated that in current practice, resourcessuch as traditional ceremonies, Native language,and traditional healing and spirituality were leastused. This finding suggests a tension betweencultural traditions of family preservation and currentpractice. One explanation is that intrusionson the internal domain of sovereignty create dis-56

sonance between tribal nurturing systems andmediating structures.State and county service providers received thelowest mean scores. This rating is consistentwith the first-year study in which tribal serviceproviders voiced a strong concern that state andcounty systems intruded upon tribal familypreservation efforts (Red Horse et al., 2000).Importantly, informants in both years of this studyemphasized that effective family preservationrequires complementary interaction between traditionalcultural resources and service programs.Survey respondents rated all cultural markershigher from a standpoint of an ideal for familypreservation. Highest mean scores includedimmediate family, grandparents, Indian professionals,the tribal court system, extended families,and elders. These findings indicate that tribalservice providers tend to view key markers offamily preservation as a confluence of formal andTABLE 1: AVERAGE RATING OF RESPONSES OF CULTURAL MARKERSACTUAL IDEAL RESIDUALNative language 3.21 2.20 1.01Traditional ceremonies 3.07 1.73 1.33Elders 2.27 1.67 0.60Immediate family 2.13 1.40 0.73Extended family 2.20 1.60 0.60Traditional healing/spirituality 3.21 1.93 1.28Tribal court system 2.33 1.53 0.80Tribal foster parents 2.20 1.40 0.80Grandparents 2.33 1.53 0.80Tribal community members 3.00 2.07 0.93Indian service professionals 2.47 1.53 0.93State/county service providers 3.00 2.40 0.60Tribal council support 2.60 1.87 0.73School staff participation 2.93 1.80 1.13[N=17; 1 = essential; 2 = very important; 3 = somewhat important; 4 = not important]57

natura l support re s o u rces. Extended families andelde rs consistently emerge in talking circles, personalinterviews, and surve ys as essential to familyp re s e rvation services. In addition, survey re s p o n-dents re i n f o rce concern that elders se rve as a keylink for families. Traditional ceremonies and traditionalhealing/spirituality are also rate d highly.The lowest mean scores in the ideal category areNative language and state/county serviceproviders respectively. This points to two importantissues. First, it supports elders’ concernsthat Native language and traditional healing arewaning in tribal communities. Many tribal peopledo not speak their language fluently as a result ofassimilation policies even though it is importantto cultural and family preservation. In part, this isexacerbated by education and training of socialworkers in mainstream models of practice which,in turn, promote disconnection between tribalcustom and program services. Unless this inherenttension is addressed, Native culturalresources will remain underutilized. Second, concerns about the role of non-Indian serviceproviders in tribal family preservation echo concernsraised by tribal elders and serviceproviders in the first-year study (Red Horse, etal., 2000). There is a great deal of interference intribal family preservation by non-tribal family andchild service professionals, especially in PublicLaw 280 states. The Ft. Berthold case studyclearly indicates that family preservation is mostsuccessful when it is based on tribal customarypractice and is implemented by staff from thetribal community.Interestingly, cultural markers found to have theleast variation between actual and ideal practiceare elders, extended family, and state and countyservice providers. This suggests that elders andextended family are important resources in currenttribal family preservation practice. It alsosupports concerns about non-tribal service workersin tribal programs; this resource was notrated highly in either current or ideal categories.Resources with the largest mean variation weretraditional ceremonies and traditionalhealing/spirituality. Respondents rated these asvery important to family preservation in the idealwith mean scores of 1.73 and 1.93 respectively.However, in actual practice, mean score ratingswere 3.07 and 3.21. This disparity helps pinpointan ongoing dilemma faced by tribal family preservationworkers. How do tribes establish familypreservation practices that build upon traditionalresources in light of domination by mainstreamsocial work models?Survey results highlight important findings fromthe case study of Ft. Berthold. Key informantsconsistently describe the tradition-rich history ofthe Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan as well asexisting ceremonies that reinforce cultural andfamilial ties. Survey results indicate that in actualpractice, only half of respondents ratedceremonies as currently important in family58

preservation practice. Moreover, at Ft. Berthold,family preservation workers regard elders andgrandparents as cornerstones of family preservation.Family (immediate, extended, and clan) isthe centerpiece of family preservation aroundwhich services revolve. One of the most significantfindings at Ft. Berthold is the high rate offormally trained tribal practitioners across familypreservation programs. Ft. Berthold familypreservation systems have a holistic lens thatsees the importance of including, when appropriate,other community systems (e.g., tribal courts,schools, etc.) especially in the wraparoundprocess with families. Community members atFt. Berthold consistently express support forretaining their Native language.Survey respondents were also asked to assessthe importance of selected knowledge and skillsfor family preservation staff working with Indianfamilies. These included• working experience with Indian families;• knowledge about Indian family and extendedfamily systems;• knowledge about tribal kinship/clan systems;• knowledge about the ICWA;• knowledge about the ASFA;• knowledge about federal/state/county programs;• informal relationships with tribal communityand families;• professional education in social work/socialservices;• cooperative relationships with state agencies;• knowledge about traditional Indian culture;• knowledge of Native language;• knowledge about tribal court systems;• knowledge about county court systems;• knowledge about strengths of Indian families;• good working relationships with tribal elders;• ability to work with tribal councils; and• knowledge about traditional ceremonies.Figure 3 summarizes the responses. Overall, theskills/knowledge areas that received the highestnumber of essential ratings were knowledge ofICWA, knowledge about Indian family strengths,experience working with Indian families, andknowledge about Indian extended family systems.These ratings point to a fundamentalstrength-based cultural orientation in tribal familypreservation. For mal social work training and curriculum,overall, received low ratings. This suggestsa dissonance between the trainingacquired by social service professionals andneeds confronting American Indian families.Survey respondents gave relatively lower ratingsregarding knowledge of a Native language. Thismay be cause for concern for planning in familypreservation because it is contrary to concernsamong Indian elders. They view language as afundamental component of tribal family andcommunity life.59

FIGURE 3: RATED IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS IN FAMILY PRESERVATIONEssentialVery ImportantSomewhat ImportantNot Important60

Summary and RecommendationsExtended family systems and children are cornerstonesof American Indian culture. Throughoutthis two-year project, elders sadly described thehistory of social abuse directed at Indian familiesand children. But more than this, they movinglytold of powerful internal resources that are thefoundation of Indian resiliency and survival. Indianlaw scholar Felix Cohen once proclaimed, “Likethe miner’s canary, the Indian marks the shiftfrom fresh air to poison gas in our politicalatmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, evenmore than our treatment of other minorities,reflects the rise and fall in our democratic faith”(Getches, Wilkinson, & Williams, Jr., 1993, p. 30).Today, young people in crisis are leading the wayto cultural renewal; in this respect, they are fulfillingtribal prophecies. In a powerful reclamation ofboth the history and future of Indian people, atribal community member stated, “Children thatare getting in trouble are the canaries in themine. If we don’t respond, the children will die.”Despite U.S. governmental efforts to annihilate allaspects of Indian culture, extended family systemsand traditional practices continue to flourishin Indian Country. Extended family and clanshipat Ft. Berthold af firms that culture has beenretained irrespective of historic trauma. Eachgeneration of the Three Affiliated Tribes has sufferedover the past 165 years. The tribes havesurvived smallpox, land loss, and boardingschools. They have been uprooted from traditionalvillages to make way for Garrison Dam. Yetthroughout these tumultuous events, extendedfamily systems remain as the centerpiece of thenurturing system.Traditions of the Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandanform a worldview in which life’s challenges andproblems are understood to be part of a journeyto greater understanding and commitment tofamily, community, tribe, and the universe. At Ft.Berthold, family preservation activities are areflection of this philosophy. Services build uponlongstanding and natural nurturing systems. Theirpurpose is to facilitate the process of strengtheningfamily supports that have been weakened.With this guiding philosophy, Ft. Berthold offersfamilies a path to well-being that is rooted in theirNative cultures. The strengths of other keyaspects of the nurturing system including clans,language, religion, and ritual societies are alsoused in valuable ways.A critical finding in last year’s study indicated aneed for American Indian family preservation to“evolve from a framework of internal sovereignty”(Red Horse et al., 2000, p. 65). It also introducedconcepts of “habilitation” (ongoing family kinshipsystems) and “rehabilitation” (reunification of familiesand reclamation of culture) as important elementsin tribal family preservation. This casestudy of Ft. Berthold offers valuable insightsabout key factors that comprise an internally61

sovereign family preservation system. Non-Indianmodels of service can be and are taught in mainstreaminstitutional settings, but these limitedmodels do not further understanding of habilitationand rehabilitation within Indian families.Understanding tribal customs requires a life-longpersonal and professional commitment to learning.As Malcolm Wolf explained, “Adversity to ourpeople is a gift. We can make it, but it takes thewhole tribal community—everyone.”Our key findings from this study, listed below,should inform program development andresearch into American Indian family preservation.We advance these with hopes that tribal sovereigntyand its associated cultural attributes willremain central to programs serving tribal people:• Family preservation requires a great deal ofvigilance, particularly in the form of advocacy,with political structures and coordinationamong programs serving tribal families. Thishighlights the need for community educationand advocacy to keep the principles of familypreservation on the front burner.• The presence of cultural inclusiveness in governmentcircles outside the tribal network isessential to the ongoing practice of familypreservation at Ft. Berthold. This includessuch units as the Office of the Governor, theOffice of Indian Affairs, and the office of thestate Title IV-E programs. In this arena ofinclusiveness, tribes are similar to state agencies,and government-to-government relationsare maintained between tribes andthe state.• The use of tribal members as staff in familypreservation services is an essential piece ofthe model. They possess grounded understandingof knowledge, attitudes, and beliefscentral to the Three Affiliated Tribes.• Tribal cultural systems are an essential part oftribal social work. Reliance on these systemsassures that families, communities, and culturalbeliefs will be empowered in the familypreservation process.• Tribal government knowledge about the statusof family life is enhanced through ongoingcommunication from family preservation staff.This, in turn, strengthens the domains ofinternal and external sovereignty, particularlyas the tribe is positioned to articulate familyneeds and to assure that family servicesrespect the mandates of ICWA.• Family preservation is enhanced when itrespects tribal family values. This is observedthrough interactive behavior such as highnumbers of self-referrals for services andthrough ongoing modifications in servicesuch as guardianship without termination ofparental rights.62

• The success of family preservation is a resultof staff that possess cultural knowledge ratherthan staff that possess formal social worktraining. Social work training is valued, butcultural knowledge is essential.• Social work must transform itself from a servicesystem based on deficit models into onethat acts as a cultural facilitator. This will serveto reaffirm structural and cultural integrity oftribal family systems.63

ReferencesAdams, D. W. (1995). Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding school experience.Kansas City, KS: University of Kansas.Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). The adoptionand foster care analysis and reporting system – data for the period ending March 31, 1999.Washington, DC.American Indian Research and Policy Institute. (1995). The legal and historical importance of tribal sovereignty.A summary report of the spring forum of May 25–26, 1995. St. Paul, MN: American IndianResearch and Policy Institute.Bahr, S., Wang, G., & Zhang, J. (1991). Early family research. In Stephen J. Bahr (Ed.), Family research:A sixty-year review, 1930–1990. Volume 1. New York: Lexington Books.Banach, M. (1998). The best interests of the child: Decision-making factors. Families in Society: TheJournal of Contemporary Human Services, 79, 331–340.Berry, M. (1998). Adoption in an era of family preservation. Children and Youth Services Review, 20, 1–12.Berry, M., & Cash, S. J. (1998). Creating community through psychoeducational groups in family preservationwork. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 79 (1), 15–24.Blundo, R. (2001). Learning strengths-based practice: Challenging our personal and professional frames.Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82 (3), 296–304.Burns, B. J., & Goldman, F. R. (Eds.), (1999). Promising practices in wraparound programs for childrenwith serious emotional disturbances and their families. In Systems of Care: Promising Practiceswith Children’s Mental Health. 1998 series Vol. IV. Washington, DC: Center for EffectiveCollaboration and Practice, Institute for Research.Cimmarusti, R. A. (1992). Family preservation practice based upon a multisystems approach. ChildWelfare, 71 (3), 241–256.Courtney, M. E. (1997). Reconsidering family preservation: A review of putting families first. Children andYouth Services Review, 19 (1/2), 61–76.Deloria, V. (1996). Self-determination and the concept of sovereignty. In J. R. Wunder, (Ed.), NativeAmerican Sovereignty. New York: Garland Publishing.Deloria, V. (1995). Rethinking tribal sovereignty. In American Indian Research and Policy Institute, TheLegal and Historical Importance of Tribal Sovereignty. A Summary Repor t of the Spring Forum.May 25–26. St. Paul, MN: American Indian Research and Policy Institute.Dupaix, L. (1997). Best interests revisited: In search of guidelines. Utah Law Review, 651 (3), 651–672.Duran, E., & Duran, B. (1995). Native American post colonial psychology. Albany, NY: State University ofNew York Press.64

Early, T. J. (2001). Measures for practice with families from a strengths perspective. Families in Society:The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82 (3), 225–232.Early, T. J., & GlenMaye, L. F. (2000). Valuing families: Social work practice with families from a strengthsperspective. Social Work, 45 (2), 118–130.Fraser, M. W. & Haapala, D. A. (1988). Home-based family treatment: A quantitative-qualitative assessment.Journal of Applied Social Science, 12, 1–23.Fraser, M. W., Pecora, P. J., & Haapala, D. A. (1991). Families in crisis: The impact of intensive familypreservation services . Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.General Accounting Office. (1993). Foster care: Services to prevent out-of-home placements are limitedby funding barriers. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.Getches, D. H., Wilkinson, C. F., & Williams, Jr., R. A. (1993). Federal Indian law: Cases and materials. St.Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.Goldstein, J., Freud, A. & Solnit, A. (1973). Beyond the best interests of the child. New York: Aldine deGruyter.Goldstein, J., Freud, A., & Solnit, A. (1979). Before the best interests of the child. New York: The FreePress.Goldstein, J., Freud, A., Solnit, A., & Goldstein, S. (1986). In the best interests of the child. New York:The Free Press.Graybeal, C. (2001). Strengths-based social work assessment: Transforming the dominant paradigm.Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82 (3), 233–242.Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. P.L. 95–608, 25 U.S.C. 1901.Jackson, H. J. (1995). A century of dishonor: A sketch of the United States dealings with some of theIndian tribes. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Kelly, S., & Blythe, B. (2000). Family preservation: A potential not yet realized. Child Welfare, 79(1),29–42.Melton, A. P., & Gardner, J. Public Law 280: Issues and concerns for victims of crime in Indian country.Retrieved from http://www.tribal-institute.org/articles/gardner1.htm.Meyer, R. W. (1977). The village Indians of the upper Missouri. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Maluccio, A. N., & Whittaker, J. K. (1997). Learning from the family preservation initiative. Children andYouth Services Review, 19 (1/2), 5–16.Napoli, M., & Gonzales-Santin, E. (2001). Intensive home-based and wellness services to NativeAmerican families living on reservations: A model. Families in Society: The Journal ofContemporary Human Services, 82 (3), 315–32465

Native American Training Institute. (n.p.d.). Wraparound in Indian country: The ways of the people arewho we are. Bismarck, ND: Native American Training Institute.Nelson, K. (1997). Family preservation—what is it? Children and Youth Services Review, 19 (1/2),101–118.Nelson, K., Emlen, A., Landsman, M., & Hutchinson, J. (1988). Factors contributing to success and failurein family based child welfare services: Final report. Iowa City, IA: National Resource Center onFamily Based Services.Pearce, R. H. (1988). Savagism and civilization. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Powell, W. E. (2001). The eye of the beholder. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary HumanServices, 82 (3), 219–220.Pritzker, B. M. (2000). A Native American encyclopedia: History, culture, and peoples. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.Red Horse, J. (1982). American Indian community mental health: A primary prevention strategy. In S. M.Manson, (Ed.), New directions in prevention among American Indian and Alaskan Native communities.Portland, OR: Oregon Health Sciences University, 217–231.Red Horse, J., Martinez, C., Day, P., Day, D., Poupart, J., & Scharnberg, D. (2000). Family preservation:Concepts in American Indian communities. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs.Stein, T. J. (2000). The Adoption and Safe Families Act: Creating a false dichotomy between parents’ andchildren’s rights. Family in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 81(6),586–592.Sung-Chi H., & Cowger, C. D. (1998). Utilizing strengths in assessment. Families in Society: The Journalof Contemporary Human Services, 79 (1), 25–31.Sviridoff, M., & Ryan, W. (1997). Community centered family service. Families in Society: The Journal ofContemporary Human Services, 78 (2), 128–139.VanDenBerg, J. E. (1993). Integration of individualized mental health services into the system of care forchildren and adolescents. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 20 (4), 247–257.Walter, U. M., & Petr, C. G. (2000). A template for family-centered interagency collaboration. Families inSociety: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 81 (5), 494-503.Yazzie, R. (1994). “Life comes from it”: Navajo justice concepts. New Mexico Law Review, 24, 175–190.Yellow Horse Brave Heart, M. (1999). Oyate Ptayela: Rebuilding the Lakota Nation through addressinghistorical trauma among Lakota parents. In Hilary Weaver, (Ed.), Voices of First Nations People(pp. 109–126). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.66

APPENDIX AFamily Preservation SurveyNational Indian Children’s AllianceIf you are employed by a tribe, please list the tribe: _________________State where tribe is located: _____________________________________Your job title: _________________________________________________Are you American Indian? _____ Yes_______ NoIf yes what tribe? ______________________________________________1. Please identify or list any tribal cultural resources you believe are important for the support ofAmerican Indian families.2. Are any of these cultural resources currently used by your tribe’s child welfare and family preservation/supportprograms? If yes, please describe briefly.3. How do your tribal family support/preservation programs differ, if at all, from county or stateprograms?4. Please list your most successful family support/preservation program(s).What, in your opinion, are the reasons for its success?5. On a scale of 1 to 5, please rate in importance the following resources in terms of their actual currentrole in support/preservation of tribal families. Then, from your perspective rate their importance in anideal tribal family support preservation program.(1= essential; 2= very important; 3=important; 4=not very important; 5=not necessary)ActualIdealNative language 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Traditional ceremonies 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Elders 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Immediate family 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 567

Extended family 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Traditional healing/spirituality 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Tribal court system 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Tribal foster homes 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Grandparents 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Tribal community members 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Indian service professionals 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5State/County service providers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Tribal Council Support 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5School staff participation 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 55. Please list the most prevalent issues/challenges facing tribal families and children.6. What tribal resources and/or programs are currently available to families and children that are experiencingdifficulties?7. How would you describe a healthy family?8. It is critical to identify the appropriate skills/knowledge social service professionals must have in orderto work with American Indian families. From your perspective, please rate the importance of each ofthe following skills for professionals working with tribal child welfare and family support programs.(1=essential, 2= very important, 3=somewhat important, 4=not important)____ Working experience with Indian families____ Knowledge about Indian family and extended family systems____ Knowledge about tribal kinship/clan systems____ Knowledge about the Indian Child Welfare Act____ Knowledge about federal/state/county programs____ Informal relationships with tribal community and families____ Professional education in social work/social services____ Cooperative relationships with state agencies68

____ Knowledge about traditional tribal Indian culture____ Knowledge of Native language____ Knowledge about tribal court systems_____ Knowledge about county court systems____ Knowledge about strengths of tribal Indian families____ Good working relationship with tribal elders____ Ability to work with Tribal councils9. How many tribal children are currently in foster care? _____Please estimate how many of these children have been placed with a family member ______10. How many Termination of Parental Rights (TPRs) have occurred in the last year?Of these, how many children were permanently placed with a family member?OPTIONAL:If you would like to receive information regarding the results of this survey please provide the followinginformation. This is entirely optional, and we will still respect the confidentiality of your answers. Thank youagain for your time and effort.Name: ________________________________________________________Address: ______________________________________________________City: _____________________State: ________________ Zip: ________Email: ________________________________________________________Phone number: _________________________________________________69

Footnotes1 The Dawes Act refers to the General Allotment Act passed in 1887 and draws its name from itssponsor, Senator Henry Dawes. The stated purpose of the act was to civilize Indians through invoking theconcept of private ownership of land. The act allotted reservation lands in severalty to individual Indians inquantities as follows: “To each head of a family, one-quarter of a section; To each single person overeighteen years of age, one-eighth of a section; To each orphan child under eighteen years of age, oneeighthof a section; and To each other single person under eighteen years now living, or who may bebor n prior to the date of the order of the President directing an allotment of the lands embraced in anyreservation, one-sixteenth of a section.” Further, the act stipulated that Indian lands not allotted could besold for the purpose of White homesteading. Ownership of 11 million acres of the Three Affiliated TribesIndian lands was transferred to non-Indian ownership as the result of the General Allotment Act.2 North Dakota State Commissioner Don Schmid is specifically identified as highly supportive andinstrumental to the development of Ft. Berthold family preservation.70