This study is a preliminary investigation of the relationship between the notice requirement and intervention in a sample of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Child in Need of Aid (CINA) cases in Alaska in 1992. A randomized sample by geographic district of all active Alaska Native children cases drawn from the "Prober" computerized database of the Alaska Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) constituted the study population. Data collection occurred through review of social workers' case files in Juneau, Fairbanks, Bethel, and Anchorage

Rieger, Lisa

English

ScholarWorks@UA

NOTICE AND INTERVENTION IN ICW A CINA CASES 1992 Lisa Rieger Justice Center University of Alaska Anchorage April 15, 1994 JC 9218 NOTICE AND INTERVENTION IN ICW A CINA CASES 1992 Thanks to the cooperation of the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) for providing data and access to case files through their Prober computer system, this study made a preliminary investigation of the relationship between the notice requirement and intervention in a sample of some Indian Child Welfare (ICWA) cases. A randomized sample by geographic DFYS district drawn from the DFYS computerized data base (Prober) of all active Alaska Native children cases for 1992 constituted the study population. Data collection occurred through review of social workers' case files in Juneau, Fairbanks, Bethel and Anchorage. Specifically, the study attempted to determine: • in how many CINA actions did social workers' case files contain evidence of legal notice to the child's tribe; • at what point in DFYS' involvement did notice occur; • who received the notice of Child in Need of Aid proceedings; • in how many cases did intervention occur; and • whether notice resulted in intervention. DEMOGRAPHICS The original sample consisted of a total of 100 cases drawn from the Bethel, Juneau, Ketchikan, Anchorage and Fairbanks regions. The cases were distributed as follows: Bethel 13 cases Juneau, Sitka 30 cases Petersburg 1 case Ketchikan 10 cases Anchorage, Tok 19 cases Fairbanks 27 cases Total 100 cases Native Intervention in CINA Cases Page 2 Forty-six boys (46%) and 54 girls (54%) were in the total sample. DFYS statewide ICWA cases have a similar distribution of 47.7% male and 52.3% female. Children in the sample represented each of the Alaska Native groups as follows: Racial Distribution of Study Group and DFYS ICW A Cases Statewide N % Statewide% Yup'ik 15 15.0% 26.2% Inupiat 12 12.0 20.8 Unknown Eskimo 8 8.0 8.1 Aleut 2 2.0 6.8 Tlingit 34 34.0 15.2 Haida 1 1.0 .6 Tsimshian 4 4.0 1.3 Athabascan 19 19.0 16.8 Other Alaska Native 1 1.0 2.0 Black 3 3.0 n/a Caucasian 1 1.0 n/a Total 100 The cases in each district's sample, with the exception of Anchorage, are weighted for their proportion of the total number of ICWA cases. The Anchorage sample is less than its proportion in the total, resulting in skewed proportions for Juneau and Fairbanks, and correspondingly, for Athabascan and Tlingit cases. (For example, Southeast cases totaled 41 of the 100 cases -- almost half the study population.) Although Anchorage is the largest office with the most cases, time and resource limitations of the study prevented review of a truly representative sample from that office. Furthermore, the study made a special effort to gather data from districts in which one Native non-profit corporation was responsible for delivery of Native Intervention in CINA Cases Page 3 social services to the children of the region in an attempt to determine if significant differences in notice or intervention occurred in those districts. The cases represented ten non-profit corporations in the sample as follows: Arctic Slope Native Association 3 cases (Barrow) Cook Inlet Tribal Association 1 case (Anchorage) Kawerak 2 cases (Nome) Ketchikan Indian 3 cases (Ketchikan) Manilaq 2 cases (Kotzebue) Sitka Tribal Association 2 cases (Sitka) Tanana Chiefs Conference 13 cases (Fairbanks) Tlingit Haida Central Council 31 cases (Juneau) Yakutat Native Association 2 cases (Yakutat) Association of Village Council Presidents 11 cases (Bethel) Kodiak Area Native Association 1 case (Kodiak) Metlakatla 5 cases (Ketchikan) Unknown 24 cases Total 100 cases NOTICE AND INTERVENTION The study determined frequencies and correlations of notices and interventions on the basis of actions taken in cases, rather than on a case-by-case basis, as notice often occurred for more than one type of action in the same case. Although all of the cases were open at some time in 1992, many of the actions occurred before 1992. The data analysis excluded three youth corrections cases, one each from Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Sitka, although all began as abuse or neglect cases. Thus, the numbers tabulated reflect actions taken in 97 of the cases listed above. Two of the youth corrections cases excluded were male and one was female, but other demographic data are not known for these cases. Frequencies for several variables demonstrate Native Intervention in CINA Cases Page 4 the distribution of notice and intervention by non-profit corporation and village, as well as by formal (in court) or informal intervention. The notice element is broken down by action type in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1 and 2. (See attached) The study used only formal legal notice in tabulating numbers. The numbers do not include telephone calls or other non-legal contacts. The various types of legal actions taken in children's cases included petition, termination, extension, adjudication, release of custody, annual review, temporary custody, guardianship, notice of hearing, voluntary placement, and other. The preliminary data analysis shows that: • social workers' files reflected that the state notified tribes in 4 7. 3 % of petitions filed in Native Child in Need of Aid cases, and in 58.3 % of adjudications; • the state notified tribes in 77.8% of termination of parental rights actions and 61.9% of temporary custody actions. • non-profit corporations received notice in 65. 7 % of actions in which notice was given and at least one village received notice in 18.7% of these actions. It is important to note that Native non-profit corporations are not considered tribes for purposes of ICW A notice unless they are authorized by the village tribal entity. Thus, non-profit corporations generally receive notice only as a result of authorization by village tribes. This is one of the factors which requires additional explanation and exploration because of the inconsistent application statewide of who receives notice under ICWA. The disproportionate number of THCC, A VCP and TCC cases may explain the large proportion of non-profits receiving notice in this study, because each of these three non-profits have an active program of representing villages in the hub courts, and the majority of their cases arise in Juneau, Bethel and Fairbanks respectively. Where intervention occurred, the study documented both formal and informal interventions. Formal intervention consisted of filing court documents, appearing in court, or signing stipulations. Informal intervention appeared as telephone calls, letters or other communication between non-profit corporations or villages and DFYS social workers. The study Native Intervention in CINA Cases Page 5 accounted for formal and informal intervention separately, and in some cases both occurred. The total number of interventions (counted action by action) were 117. • Of 69 total non-profit interventions, 54 were formal, 7 informal, and 8 unknown. • Of 40 total one-village interventions, 13 were formal, 23 informal, 3 both formal and informal, and 11 unknown. • Of 8 total two-village interventions, none was formal, 2 were informal, 4 were both formal and informal, and 2 unknown. Where intervention occurred, the study cross-tabulated notice and intervention, revealing some interesting trends. The study relied on records in the social workers' files for both intervention and notice, which may limit the findings. However, the study assumed that all legal documents relating to the cases would appear in the legal documents section of the files, and that other types of informal intervention would appear in "Reports of Contact" and correspondence sections of the files. • In almost one-third of the actions in which notice was given, no intervention was documented in social workers' files. • In 20.7% of the actions, notice and intervention occurred. • Intervention also occurred in almost 10 % (9 .45 % ) of actions where no notice was documented in the files. This finding may result from the above mentioned possibility of informal contacts on the part of DFYS, or from Native ICW A worker presence in the courtroom because of other cases, or from family members alerting the tribal representative about a CINA case. • In 9 .15 % of the actions, intervention did not occur in spite of notice. CONCLUSIONS Native Intervention in CINA Cases Page 6 This initial examination of the relationship between the notice requirement of ICW A and intervention, as reflected in social workers' files, demonstrated that notice occurred in almost half of the actions in which a petition was filed. (62.7% overall). Of the total notices given in conjunction with a petition, non-profits received 41.9% (65.7% overall). This was particularly true in the Juneau and Sitka cases, where Tlingit Haida Central Council received almost all the notices, including some cases of Inupiat or Yup'ik children. With regard to intervention, the data suggested that non-profit intervention is more likely to be formal in nature, whereas villages are more likely to intervene in informal ways. The correlation between notice and intervention shows that in the greatest proportion of cases notice was documented, but intervention was unknown (32.3%). In 20.7% of actions, notice and intervention occurred. In just under 10% of the actions intervention occurred without documented formal legal notice, and in another 9 .15 % intervention did not occur in spite of documented legal notice. Future study is required to ascertain why intervention is undocumented in so many actions in which there is notice. Some basic limitations of the study design may have affected the findings. To determine notice, the study relied on legal documents in social workers' files, not on court file records; therefore, formal notice and/or intervention may have occurred more frequently than is reflected in these statistics. Native Intervention in CINA Cases Page 7 Further study is essential to an accurate assessment of the implementation of ICW A in Alaska and the areas in which action must be taken. Further study must investigate court files and utilize face-to-face interviews with the personnel in all phases of ICWA CINA proceedings. Further study would determine: 1) the extent to which a variety of attitudes and responses among the districts to the notice requirement and processing of ICW A cases in general exists; 2) why intervention occurs without notice and why intervention does not occur in spite of notice; and 3) the efficacy of intervention in accomplishing ICWA's goal of protecting Native children without disrupting tribal and cultural ties. 50 •• 40 35 UI Cl) UI 30 <a CJ .... 0 25 ... Cl) ..c E 20 :::i z 15 10 Native Intervention in CINA Cases Page 8 Table 1. Was Notice Given? Yes No, Unknown N % N % Total Petition 44 47.3 49 52.7 93 Termination 14 77.8 4 22.2 18 Extension 39 83.0 8 17.0 47 Adjudication 21 58.3 15 41.7 36 Release of custody 11 91.7 1 8.3 12 Annual review 28 87.5 4 12.5 32 Temporary custody 26 61.9 16 38.1 42 Guardianship 6 100.0 6 Notice of hearing 6 100.0 6 Voluntary placement 1 33.3 2 66.7 3 Other 16 51.6 15 48.4 31 Unknown 2 100.0 2 Total 206 62.8 122 37.2 328 Row percentages. Figure 1. Was Notice Given? Petition Termination Extension Adjudication Release Annual Temporary GuarciaJstip Notice of Voluntary Other Unknown of review custody hearing placement custody Petition Termination Extension Adjudication Release of custody Annual review Temporary custody Guardianship Notice of hearing Voluntary placement Other Unknown Total Native Intervention in CINA Cases Page 9 Table 2. When Notice Was Given, Who Received Notice? D F A B c Both village E Both BIA & village Nonprofit One village Two villages & nonprofit Unknown or nonprofit N % N % N % N % N % N % Total 18 41.9 11 25.6 6 14.0 5 11.6 2.3 2 4.7 43 7 50.0 3 21.4 3 21.4 1 7.1 14 26 68.4 6 15.8 2.6 4 10.5 1 2.6 38 17 85.0 3 15.0 20 9 81.8 2 18.2 11 18 62.1 8 27.6 2 6.9 1 3.4 29 22 84.6 2 7.7 1 3.8 3.8 26 5 83.3 1 16.7 6 1 100.0 1 10 66.7 4 26.7 6.7 16 1 1 134 66.7 38 18.6 10 4.9 16 7.4 2 1.0 5 2.5 204 Row percentages. Table 3. Intervention and ICWA Notice Did intervention Was ICWA notice occur? given? Frequency Percentage Yes Yes 68 20.7% No, Unknown 31 9.5 No Yes 30 9.1 % No, Unknown 32 9.8 Unknown Yes 106 32.3 % No, Unknown 44 13.4 N/A Yes 2 0.6 % No, Unknown 15 4.6 328 100.0 % Petition Termination Extension Adjudication Release of custody Annual review Temporary custody Guardianship Notice of hearing Voluntary placement Other Unknown Total 60 50 40 en ~ en I'll c.J ..... 30 0 ... ~ ..c E ::I z 20 10 Nonprofit Native Intervention in CINA Cases Page 11 Table 4. Did Intervention Occur? N 24 8 7 12 3 11 18 1 1 12 2 99 Yes No Unknown N/A % N % N % N % Total 25.8 22 23.7 38 40.9 9 9.7 93 44.4 4 22.2 6 33.3 18 14.9 6 12.8 32 68.1 2 4.3 47 33.3 7 19.4 15 41.7 2 5.6 36 25.0 1 8.3 8 66.7 12 34.4 7 21.9 14 43.8 32 42.9 9 21.4 14 33.3 2.4 42 6 100.0 6 16.7 3 50.0 2 33.3 6 33.3 1 33.3 1 33.3 3 38.7 3 9.7 14 45.2 2 6.5 31 100.0 2 30.2 62 18.9 150 45.7 17 5.2 328 Row percentages. Figure 3. Type of Intervention One village Two villages ~Formal ~Informal m Both •Unknown Appendix A Detailed data in Appendix A is summarized in Tables 1-4. Table 1: Was WITH NOTICE WITHOUT NOTICE UNKNOWN Notice G1ven·t A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 AOS A09 A10 A11 A12 Total A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 AOS Tota A01 A02 A03 A04 ~05 A06 A07 Tota Petition Intervention 11 3 2 1 1 18 4 1 1 6 0 No intervention 7 2 1 10 5 2 2 1 1 11 1 1 Unknown 4 5 3 2 1 1 16 18 2 2 22 0 N/A 0 6 2 1 9 0 Termination Intervention 2 3 1 1 7 1 1 0 No intervention 2 1 3 1 1 0 Unknown 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 0 Extension Intervention 2 2 1 1 1 7 0 0 No intervention 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 0 Unknown 4 7 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 26 2 1 3 2 1 3 N/A 1 1 1 1 0 Adjudication Intervention 2 2 1 2 7 2 1 3 1 1 2 No intervention 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 0 Unknown 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 12 2 1 3 0 N/A 0 1 1 1 1 Release of custody Intervention 2 1 3 0 0 No intervention 0 1 1 0 Unknown 1 1 1 2 1 2 8 0 0 Annual review Intervention 1 4 2 3 10 1 1 0 No intervention 2 2 1 5 1 1 2 0 Unknown 1 1 4 3 3 1 13 1 1 0 Temporary custody Intervention 3 4 2 9 4 1 1 6 3 3 No intervention 1 2 1 1 5 2 1 1 4 0 Unknown 4 1 3 2 1 11 1 2 3 0 N/A 1 1 0 0 Guardianship Intervention 0 0 0 No intervention 0 0 0 Unknown 4 1 1 6 0 0 Notice of hearing Intervention 0 1 1 0 No intervention 0 2 1 3 0 Unknown 0 1 1 2 0 Other Intervention 2 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 2 3 No intervention 0 2 1 3 0 Unknown 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 9 1 1 2 4 1 1 N/A 0 1 1 1 1 Voluntary placement Intervention 0 1 1 0 No intervention 0 0 0 Unknown 1 1 0 0 N/A 0 1 1 0 Unknown Intervention 0 0 1 1 2 No intervention 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 9218BIA1.XLS - p. 1 Justice Center, UAA Table2: Who A - NONPROFIT B - ONE VILLAGE C - TWO VILLAGES Recd Notice A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 AOS A09 A10 A11 A12 Total A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 AOS A09 A10 Tota A01 A02 A03 A04 Tota Petition Intervention 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 6 3 3 No intervention 1 1 1 3 3 1 4 2 2 Unknown 1 4 3 2 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 N/A 0 0 0 Termination Intervention 2 1 3 0 0 No intervention 1 1 1 1 2 0 Unknown 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 Extension Intervention 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 0 No intervention 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 Unknown 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 19 1 1 1 1 N/A 0 1 1 0 Adjudication Intervention 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 0 No intervention 1 1 2 0 0 Unknown 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 0 N/A 0 0 0 Release of custody Intervention 1 1 0 0 No intervention 0 0 0 Unknown 1 1 1 2 1 2 8 0 0 Annual review Intervention 1 3 4 2 2 4 1 1 No intervention 2 2 1 1 6 0 0 Unknown 1 2 2 3 8 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 Temporary custody Intervention 3 4 2 9 0 0 No intervention 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 Unknown 4 3 2 1 10 0 0 N/A 0 1 1 0 Guardianship Intervention 0 0 0 No intervention 0 0 0 Unknown 3 1 1 5 1 1 0 Notice of hearing Intervention 0 0 0 No intervention 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 Other Intervention 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 0 No intervention 0 0 0 Unknown 1 3 1 1 1 7 1 1 0 N/A 0 0 0 Voluntary placement Intervention 0 0 0 No intervention 0 0 0 Unknown 1 1 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 Unknown Intervention 0 0 0 No intervention 0 0 0 Unknown 1 1 0 0 9218BIA1.XLS - p. 2 Justice Center, UAA Table 2: Who D - BOTH VIL & NONPROFIT E-UNKNOWN F - BOTH BIA & VIUNONPR G-NIA Rec'd Notice A01 A02 A03 A05 Tota A01 A02 Total A01 A02 A06 A07 Total A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 AOS Total Petition Intervention 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 6 No intervention 1 1 0 0 5 2 3 1 1 12 Unknown 0 0 1 1 20 2 2 24 NIA 0 0 0 7 2 1 10 Termination Intervention 2 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 No intervention 0 0 0 1 1 Unknown 0 0 0 1 1 2 Extension Intervention 0 0 0 0 No intervention 0 0 0 1 1 2 Unknown 1 3 4 0 1 1 2 2 2 6 NIA 0 0 0 1 1 Adjudication Intervention 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 6 No intervention 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 5 Unknown 0 0 0 2 1 3 NIA 0 0 0 1 1 2 Release of custody Intervention 2 2 0 0 0 No intervention 0 0 0 1 1 Unknown 0 0 0 0 Annual review Intervention 1 1 0 0 1 1 No intervention 0 0 0 1 1 2 Unknown 0 0 0 1 1 Temporary custody Intervention 0 0 0 4 4 1 9 No intervention 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 Unknown 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 NIA 0 0 0 0 Guardianship Intervention 0 0 0 0 No intervention 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 Notice of hearing Intervention 0 0 0 0 No intervention 0 0 0 1 1 2 Unknown 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 Other Intervention 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 4 No intervention 0 0 0 2 1 3 Unknown 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 N/A 0 0 0 1 1 Voluntary placement Intervention 0 0 0 1 1 No intervention 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 1 1 Unknown Intervention 0 0 0 1 1 2 No intervention 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 9218BIA1.XLS- p. 3 Justice Center, UAA 

Notice and Intervention in ICWA CINA Cases 1992

https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/11122/4204/1/9218.01.notice_icwa.pdf

Notice and Intervention in ICWA CINA Cases 1992

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UA