My name is Eugene Ligtenberg. I am the Director of the South Dakota Division of The Casey Family Program. with me, in the room, are Elizabeth Garriott, a social worker from our office in Martin, South Dakota, serving the Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations; and Darice Clark, a social worker from our office on the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. The Casey Family Program provides long-term foster care to children who cannot return to their biological parents and who are not likely to be adopted as determined at the time of intake. At the current time the program serves 97 Native Americans plus approximately 600 other children in Western United States. Twothirds of the Native American children served are in North and South Dakota. We would like to give our support to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 and to S. 1976, which we believe would significantly improve the existing act. The Native American culture is unique in this country and cannot be compared to other cultures and ethnicities. Most Native American cultures have a natural "foster care" system that has been in existence for hundreds of years before contact with the majority culture. The process of acculturation and assimilation has drastically altered this system. Many native cultures view children as a responsibility of the group or tribe rather than a possession of a set of parents. Individual rights were subservient to the group or tribe, because native people viewed life as a whole entity made up of everyone and everything in the universe. Native people need to have the opportunity of this responsibility being returned to them. For many years it was the policy of the United States government to assimilate native people into the dominant culture. This assimilation was not by choice of native people, but was forced upon them. Efforts to take away their unique tribal, kinship and religious values have been devastating. Now that tribes are again strengthening themselves, we must provide laws and the means for native people to re-establish themselves, their values and their customs. The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 has done much to reverse the movement of Indian children to nonIndian families, who, for the most part, have not been helpful in establishing the unique identity of Native American children. S. 1976 will protect children who are not currently protected by existing law. It is not the responsibility of Native American people to meet the demand of non-Indian families to have children through the adoption process. The United States government established reservations for Indian tribes to have their own tribal government and to interact with the United States government as separate entities. Hence, other ethnic groups do not need to have Acts of Congress protect and preserve their heritage and culture in this way. In our We support the priority setting for placement. experience, when we have committed ourselves to the preservation of a child's culture, we have been able to locate homes for Indian children as provided in the Act. We do not believe lack of Native American families is an adequate excuse for not complying with the priority established in the Act. Many of the children with whom we work have previously been in non-Indian foster homes. Many of them have low self-esteem and lack identification with their culture. Many times they have a negative perception about Native Americans. In policy and practice, we are committed to providing Native American children positive role models within Indian families. In addition we provide experiences designed to enhance their identity as Indian persons. We support the amendments which require private agencies to comply with the Act as part of their licensing requirements and which require states to make active efforts to recruit and license Indian foster homes. We support the establishment of Indian Child Welfare Committees in each area to monitor compliance with this Act on an on-going basis. In my opinion, an Indian child who is helped to have a positive identity as an Indian person, has his or her chances of a happy, well-adjusted productive life significantly increased. I believe S. 1976 will increase the likelihood of that happening. I urge your support and thank you for your consideration. 89-069 088 - 5 PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. EVANS, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON, VICE CHAIRMAN, SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE ARE HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS A VERY IMPORTANT BILL WHICH SERVES TO AMEND, THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT. THIS LAW WAS ENACTED IN 1978 AND SERVES TO PROTECT ONE OF THE MOST VITAL RESOURCES IN INDIAN COUNTRY: THE CHILDREN. CONGRESS PASSED THIS LAW IN RESPONSE TO THE ALARMINGLY HIGH CHILDREN WHO WERE SEPARATED FROM THEIR OFTEN PERCENTAGE OF INDIAN ADOPTIVE HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS. THE WHOLESALE REMOVAL OF NEARLY 25 TO 35 PERCENT OF ALL INDIAN CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND HERITAGE OCCURRED PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT. TODAY THAT DRAMATIC RATE HAS DECLINED, HOWEVER, A RECENTLY COMMISSIONED BY THE ADMINISTRATION ON CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES AND THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS REVEALS THAT RELEASED STUDY INDIAN CHILDREN MAKE UP 0.9 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL CHILD POPULATION BUT REPRESENT 3.1 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL SUBSTITUTE CARE POPULATION. INDIAN CHILDREN ARE PLACED IN SUBSTITUTE CARE AT A CHILDREN. (3.9:1); MONTANA INCLUDING: (8.6:1); NORTH DAKOTA (21.7:1); SOUTH DAKOTA |