Juvenile Justice and Native American

Juvenile Justice and Native American Children

The objective of this work is to examine the historical policy of removing Native American children from their homes and placing them in residential schools. The historical justification of this policy will be examined as well as how this policy was implemented. Further this work will examine the issue of seriously, violent juveniles (SVJs) and answer the questions of whether there are similar arguments that can be made for removal of children from their homes. This work will also address the question of what proposals are and have been made about SVJs and how advanced the policy is in terms of its application and implementation.

Dakota-Lakota-Nakota DLN Coalition Working Groups

It is reported in the work entitled: "For the Children in Exile" states the fact in "In South Dakota, 40% of all adoptions made by the State's Department of Public Welfare since 1967-68 are of Indian children, yet Indians make up only 7% of the juvenile population. The number of South Dakota Indian children living in foster homes is per capita, nearly 16 times greater than the non-Indian rate." (Dakota-Lakota-Nakota Human Rights Advocacy Coalition, 2009) the same reports states that in "an intervention submitted to the Commission's 54th session, E/CN.4/1998/NGO/66, IITC reported that United States Public Law 95-608, the "Indian Child Welfare Act" (ICWA), implemented in 1978 to curtail the high rate of removal of Indian children from their communities by adoption to non?-Indian families, was being eroded by a more recent presidential initiative called the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (MEPA, 1995), which eliminated cultural and social standards for adoption." (Dakota-Lakota-Nakota Human Rights Advocacy Coalition, 2009) it is additionally related that in the United States presently the "transracial placement of indigenous children...continues at a rate that is alarming to American Indian Peoples. In 1976, a nationwide study found that up to 1,400 Indian children per year were being adopted by non-Indian homes. By 1997 it was estimated that more than 50,000 Indian children in the U.S. lived away from their cultural roots as adoptees in non-Indian families!" (Dakota-Lakota-Nakota Human Rights Advocacy Coalition, 2009) in fact, it is stated to have been documented "...that Indian children are placed in out-of-home care at a rate 3.6 times greater than that of the general population, a direct and ongoing threat to the preservation of Indian families, cultures, languages and social structures." (Dakota-Lakota-Nakota Human Rights Advocacy Coalition, 2009)

II. Impacts of Transracial Placement on Children

Studies that have examined the impact of transracial placement reports the following outcomes of this placement of children: (1) psychological damage; (2) ethnic identity confusion; (3) self-concept formation difficulties; and (4) adolescent repercussions such as alcoholism and high rates of suicide. (Dakota-Lakota-Nakota Human Rights Advocacy Coalition, 2009) it is held that the traditional extended family and tribal social structure of the Native American makes the requirement for children being removed from their tribe and community completely erroneous, unnecessary and violate the human rights and cultural survival of Native American children.

III. Serious and Violent Juveniles (SVJs)

Serious and violent juveniles (SVJs) are differentiated from non-SVJ offenders by the following: (1) most SVJ offenders begin offending early; (2) chronic offenders account for more than 50% of all juvenile crimes; (3) SVJ offending is more prevalent among African-American youth than among whites; (4) from childhood to adolescence, SVJ offenders tend to develop behavior problems, dishonest, property offenses and conflict with authority figures; and (5) SVJ offenders typically advance simultaneously in each problem behavior area, beginning with minor and moving on to more serious delinquency. ( Bilchick, 1997)

IV. Disproportionate Representation of Minority Children in Home Removal

It is not only Native American children who are disproportionately represented in the children removed from their homes and families and in fact, all minority children are disproportionately represented in cases in which the child has been removed from their home, family and community. Facts that emphasize this finding include those listed as follows: (1) African-American children, who comprised 15% of the U.S. child population in 1999, constituted 45% of the children in substitute care. Conversely, white children, who comprised 60% of the child population, accounted for 36% of children in out-of-home care (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). (2) of those requiring substitute care, most African-American children (56%) are placed in foster care, while most white children (72%) receive in-home services (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1999; HHS, 1999). African-American children remain in foster care for longer periods of time (U.S. Children's Bureau, 1997). (3) Five major studies in four states between 1990 and 1999 revealed that white children are four times more likely than African-American children to be reunified with their families, and they are reunited more quickly. Reunification rates in San Diego were lower among Hispanic children than for white children. And (4) Disproportionate numbers of children who are reunified return to foster care, with "race of the child" identified as one of five strong variables in decision-making. (Green, 2002)

The work of Wright and Thomas (2009) entitled: "Disproportionate Representation: Communities of Color in the Domestic Violence, Juvenile Justice, and Child Welfare Systems" states that surveys in both States and the Nation have demonstrated that "communities of color are involved with the domestic violence, child welfare and juvenile justice systems at rates that are disproportionately higher than their population size." (Wright and Thomas, 2009) the importance of judges being aware of these specific trends is noted by Wright and Thomas (2009) because the courts hold responsibility for decisions that could serve to "propel families into these systems." (Wright and Thomas, 2009)

The work entitled: "Racial Equity and Subsidized Guardianship: Critical Issues in Child Welfare Policy and Practice" reports that the Casey-Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) Alliance for Racial Equity, Cornerstone Consulting Group's National Collaboration to Promote Permanency through Subsidized Guardianship and the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) sponsored a group of child welfare advocates and practitioners from the community, states, and national at-large and to include the youth, parents and other caregivers who were "...concerned about the over-representation of and the disparities experienced by children of color in the child welfare system." (Jim Casey Youth Organization, nd) the focus of the symposium was the examination of "how subsidized guardianship policies and practices could help to reduce racial/ethnic disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare system while supporting a broader range of permanency options." (Jim Casey Youth Organization, nd) the following objectives were stated: (1) Identify barriers that prevent subsidized guardianship programs from being used effectively to promote permanence for children -- particularly children of color -- and to reduce racial/ethnic disproportionality and disparities in child welfare; (2) Explore promising state efforts to expand the use of subsidized guardianship to achieve safety and permanence for children; (3) Build stronger relationships with peers from other states and communities also struggling with issues of racial/ethnic disproportionality and disparities and their impact on permanence; and (4) Determine the next steps in developing subsidized guardianship policies and practices and broader strategies to support relatives that maximize opportunities for children and families of color in culturally appropriate ways. (Jim Casey Youth Organization, nd) Additionally stated is that the over-representation "of children of color in the foster care system is the direct result of ingrained 'structural racism' a terms often used to describe the complex combination of factors that work to produce and maintain racial inequities in American and in all aspects of human services delivery." (Jim Casey Youth Organization, nd) it is further stated that there are negative outcomes in the lives of children of color and this is held to be true at "all points of involvement in the child welfare system." (Jim Casey Youth Organization, nd) Included in these outcomes are: (1) longer lengths of stay; and (2) fewer (and less comprehensive) services and supports. (Jim Casey Youth Organization, nd) Such inequalities in service provision and available supports are often referred to as "disparities." (Jim Casey Youth Organization, nd)

V. Difference between Disparity and Disproportionality