The Center for Regional and Tribal Child Welfare Studies: Reducing disparities through indigenous social work education

Abstract

This research addresses one of the most pressing and controversial issues facing child welfare policymakers and practitioners today: the dramatic overrepresentation of Indigenous families in North American public child welfare systems. Effective, inclusive education is one necessary component of efforts to reduce such disparities. Yet recruiting students from various cultural communities to the field and educating white social work students and professionals to practice in culturally responsive ways are ongoing challenges. In this ethnography, we examine an apparently successful model of inclusive education: the Center for Regional and Tribal Child Welfare Studies (the Center) at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, School of Social Work. For over a decade, the Center has graduated Indigenous and non-Indigenous child welfare workers with MSWs now practicing within tribal communities, as well as provided continuing education for child welfare professionals. At the Center, Indigenous scholars and social workers, tribal leaders and their allies design and sustain a model of honoring and integrating Indigenous worldviews with Western social work. Experiential learningengaging the "heart and head"is a cornerstone of the Center's educational practices. Students and professional colleagues are approached with a "good heart" as "relatives" with positive intentions. They learn about the spirituality, language, culture and history of Indigenous people. The strengths-based curriculum also includes challenging content on the legacy of genocide and historical trauma on Indigenous families and communities, as well as contemporary laws and policies such as the Indian Child Welfare Act. The educational worldview and practices of the Center provide understanding for social work, generally, and child welfare, specifically, that supports effective practice and policy within diverse communities. work educational models and practices, as well as child welfare systems. It promises to provide understanding for social work, generally, and child welfare, specifically, that will contribute to effective practice and policy within our diverse communities; and create collaborations to reduce system barriers to equitable practice.

Research to Consider While Effectively Re-Designing Child Welfare Services

“…A host of issues not covered here await more evidence to guide the way forward. For example, there are undoubtedly promising advances in tribal child welfare (e.g., Chaffin et al, 2012; Haight et al, 2019; Scannapieco & Iannone, 2012) or regional practices (Lothridge, McCroskey, Pecora, Chambers, & Fatemi, 2012) emerging in the research literature that will strengthen capacity to implement effective reform. Reform should arise from a healthy mixture of ideas from children, parents, kin, judges, child welfare professionals, taxpayers, and child welfare and prevention science scholars, to name just a few key stakeholders.…”

A Connectedness Framework: Breaking the Cycle of Child Removal for Black and Indigenous Children

“…1978). The hope was to keep children connected to their culture, community, family, lands, and tribal nations (Haight et al, 2019; National Indian Child Welfare Association [NICWA], 2015). It is concerning that AN/AI children continue to be disproportionately removed from their homes and that numerous court cases have challenged the main tenets of ICWA (Newman & Fort, 2017).…”

Indigenous Cultural Safety Training for Applied Health, Social Work and Education Professionals: A PRISMA Scoping Review

“…While a third paper described delayed learner reflections collected at 1-2 weeks following the intervention (n=1; 2%) (92). Finally, of the papers that described a cultural safety training intervention, only approximately half of these papers presented the limitations of the methods chosen for the intervention evaluations (n=33; 54%) (34,39,46,47,49,51,54,57,65,66,72,74,77,80,81,84,91,93,95,98,99,106,107,110,111,115,117,123,133,134,144,148,156). The review team chose to exclude or refocus some of the data themes that were introduced in the protocol paper and proposed as part of this review study.…”

“…*A study undertaken in both Canada and the United States was counted twice. ± ¥ α ^ (15%) (26,28,29,34,51,54,57,73,88,124,129,131,138,139,141,142,147,149,150,157), First Nations in Canada (13%) and American Indians in the United States (12%)(30,41,48,63,65,79,92,93,97,120,134,146,153,155,156,158,159). Other Indigenous groups included Métis in Canada (9%)(31,32,44,50,52,62,63,109,112,114,135,154), Inuit (8%)(31,…”