<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:89643.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-341
CHILD PROTECTION AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 1601
TO AMEND THE INDIAN CHILD PROTECTION AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT
TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPORTING AND REDUCTION OF CHILD ABUSE AND FAMILY
VIOLENCE INCIDENCES ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS
__________
SEPTEMBER 24, 2003
WASHINGTON, DC
89-643 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
Paul Moorehead, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Patricia M. Zell, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
S. 1601, text of............................................. 2
Statements:
Brunoe, Garland, chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs Reservation of Oregon.............................. 27
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado,
chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs...................... 1
Cross, Terry, executive director, National Indian Child
Welfare Association........................................ 29
Grim, Charles W., director, Indian Health Service, Department
of Health and Human Services............................... 19
Hopper, Woodrow, acting deputy assistant secretary for
management--Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior..... 18
Lewis, Mark, director, Guidance Center, Hopi Tribes of
Indians.................................................... 25
Perez, Jon, IHS Division of Behavioral Health................ 19
Appendix
Prepared statements:
Brunoe, Garland.............................................. 39
Cross, Terry (with attachment)............................... 42
Grim, Charles W. (with attachment)........................... 70
Hopper, Woodrow (with attachment)............................ 80
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, vice
chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs...................... 39
Taylor, Jr., Wayne, chairman, Hopi Tribe (with attachment)... 92
Toulou, Tracy, director, Office of Tribal Justice, Department
of Justice (with attachment)............................... 100
CHILD PROTECTION AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room
485, Russell Senate Building, Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senator Campbell.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
Welcome to the committee's hearing on a bill to reauthorize
the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act,
S. 1601, which I was happy to introduce along with my friend
and colleague, Senator Inouye. Senator Inouye won't be here
this morning. We are both also on Appropriations and he is
still in the appropriations hearing. Senators Johnson and
Domenici have also cosponsored this bill.
Prepared Statement of Sen. Inouye appears in appendix.
[Text of S. 1601 follows:]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Chairman. Today, we will receive testimony on continued
incidences of child abuse, the need for tribal infrastructure
for managing child abuse cases, and whether there is proper
interagency cooperation and character investigations for
individuals having regular contact with Indian children.
There is a chart here on the right and as you can see from
that chart, studies indicate violence and abuse in Indian
country occurs at rates that are higher than other populations.
At one time, the rate of violence in Indian country rose by 18
percent while at the same time, it decreased by 8 percent for
the general population.
On chart 2, these percentages translate into very startling
figures. The numbers of Indian children victimized were over
3,000 out of every 100,000 children which is far too many. In
fact one is far too many.
Enacted in 1990, the act established extensive reporting
requirements, mandated certain character investigations and
authorized funding for prevention and treatment programs. The
bill before us today is designed to improve tribal capacity and
to identify the impediments to reducing child abuse.
S. 1601 promotes cultural perspectives by giving
consideration to tribal programs which incorporate traditional
healing methods. Preventing child abuse also requires that
individuals having regular contact with children are adequately
screened prior to contact. S. 1601 will expand the scope of
character investigations to contractors and volunteers in
addition to employees who have regular contact with Indian
children making its scope consistent with other Federal law.
With that, I look forward to hearing the testimony from our
witnesses and we will go ahead and start with pane one which
will be Woodro Hopper, acting deputy assistant secretary for
Management, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior and
Charles Grim, director, Indian Health Service. We will take you
in that order with Mr. Hopper first. Your complete written
testimony will be included. If you would like to deviate from
that written testimony, that will be fine.
STATEMENT OF WOODROW HOPPER, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR MANAGEMENT--INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hopper. I am pleased to be here today to provide the
Department's testimony supporting S. 1601, a bill to amend the
Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act to
provide for the reporting and reduction of child abuse and
family violence incidents on Indian reservations.
The Department of the Interior supports expansion of the
number and breadth of employment positions that will be subject
to the minimum standards of character under the act. The
Department of the Interior recommends a review not only of
appropriate State criminal history repositories but also tribal
criminal history repositories.
We also support inclusion of the certification requirements
for education employees who are responsible for child
protection at residential and day schools. Certification is
critical as almost all Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] funded
schools contract to provide important services including mental
health and other social services to Indian students. The
Department of the Interior supports conducting a study to help
identify and reduce the barriers to implementation of the Act,
with particular emphasis on tribal, Federal and State
investigations and prosecution of Indian and non-Indian
abusers.
The study will allow the Office of Law Enforcement Services
in the BIA to identify efforts that better serve Indian
communities and improve the implementation of the President's
citizen centered government initiative. However, we
respectfully request additional time in which to complete the
more comprehensive report to better identify incidences of
child abuse and family violence and steps to improve
intergovernmental and interagency cooperation.
The BIA, in cooperation with Indian tribes, must continue
to develop more awareness at the local level to prevent child
abuse. We must work together to ensure that abusers do not have
access to children and that any incidences of abuse are
prosecuted.
This concludes my statement. I want to thank you for
introducing this legislation and for your support for the
protection of our future generations. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Hopper appears in appendix.]
STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GRIM, DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED BY JON
PEREZ, DIRECTOR, IHS DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
Mr. Grim. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
I am Dr. Charles W. Grim, director of the Indian Health
Service. I have accompanying me today, Dr. Jon Perez, director
of our IHS Division of Behavioral Health. I will be making the
opening statement for the Department and Dr. Perez is here to
help with additional questions, should the committee have them.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify on behalf
of Secretary Thompson on S. 1601, the Indian Child Protection
Family Violence Prevention Act of 2003. With your concurrence,
I will submit my written testimony for the record and just
speak briefly.
The Chairman. It will be included in the record.
Mr. Grim. Thirteen years ago, this committee authorized the
Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
because of the incidences of abuse of children on Indian
reservations was underreported and because many perpetrators of
sexual abuse of children on Indian reservations were Federal
Government employees and because funds were inadequate to meet
the increasing needs for mental health treatment and counseling
for victims of child abuse and family violence. This act was
passed to help preserve the continued existence and integrity
of Indian tribes by protecting American Indian and Alaska
Native children and families.
Thirteen years later, these reasons, while somewhat
diminished, are still valid reasons to reauthorize the act.
Indian country has higher rates of child abuse and domestic
violence than other population groups in the United States.
Child abuse and family violence are crimes and there are
tribal, State and Federal laws that address the criminal
aspects of these behaviors.
The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention
Act enables us to undertake treatment and prevention program
activities to reduce the risk factors associated with child
abuse and family violence. The available statistics you
presented briefly in your opening comments show an alarmingly
high level of child abuse and family violence in Indian country
and this Act gives us an opportunity to do something about it.
Abuse and neglect have short and long term consequences and
long term means a lifetime of physical and psychological scars.
Experiencing abuse, neglect or violence or even its threat
increases the risk of the victim becoming a perpetrator of
violence. Children who have experienced such abuse are also at
increased risk for experiencing the adverse health effects and
behaviors as adults that include smoking, alcoholism, drug
abuse, physical inactivity, obesity, depression, suicide,
sexual promiscuity, and certain chronic diseases and being a
perpetrator of abuse as well.
As we all know, these health effects and behaviors also are
risk factors for many other diseases and chronic conditions.
The consequences of child abuse and neglect can be seen
throughout the life cycle. Among our youth who are
incarcerated, there are a large number who are victims of child
abuse and neglect.
We must protect our children and our families from violence
and must provide treatment if we are to break the cycle. There
is no simple solution. There are many factors commonly
associated with abuse and neglect but the presence of these
factors alone does not guarantee abusive situations will
develop. If we can reduce the risk factors, we can also reduce
the incidence of child abuse and family violence and can break
the cycle of abuse and its consequences.
The Indian Health Service has been a partner with five
tribes in funding grants to establish programs for child
protective services, child abuse prevention, family violence
prevention and abuse prevention and identification education
programs. The programs developed from these grants incorporated
culturally relevant aspects of prevention programs that have
shown positive effectiveness in reducing abuse and violence.
Programs of home visiting and family intervention, parent
education and school based programs for the prevention of child
sexual abuse appear to increase the number of children more
likely to use protective strategies.
The IHS also funded the development of a Child Protection
Technical and Training Manual for use in Indian country. In
addition, the Administration for Children and Families, Office
of Child Abuse and Neglect within the Department of HHS funded
the Making Medicine Project that has trained 150 professionals
on providing culturally sensitive treatment to Indian victims
of child physical and sexual abuse. These professionals are
working with American Indian and Alaska Native communities
around the country.
The IHS has also established an interagency agreement with
the Department of Justice, Office of Victims of Crime for a
four year training program for IHS physicians and nurse
practitioners in the application of forensic and telemedicine
equipment in child sexual abuse cases.
In addition, as required by the current and the proposed
act, the IHS published an interim final rule that established
minimum standards of character for IHS employees, volunteers
and contractors who are in positions identified by the IHS as
involving regular contact or control over American Indian and
Alaska Native children.
The rate of child abuse and family violence in Indian
country is high and is unacceptable. It happens for many
reasons but it doesn't happen in isolation from the economic
and social problems that are faced in Indian country resulting
in poverty, a lack of resources, limited opportunity and a
sense of hopelessness and isolation at times.
The reauthorization of the Indian Child Protection and
Family Violence Prevention Act as I mentioned earlier will
continue to help us protect our children and treat the
survivors of family violence and abuse. It will take further
investment and a broad range of Federal and tribal programs to
achieve the goal of prevention. The Department and IHS are
committed to working with you to achieve those goals of
prevention.
In conclusion, the Department fully supports enactment of
S. 1601. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or any
other members of the committee might have.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Dr. Grim appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you both, Mr. Hopper and Dr. Grim.
It really kind of amazes me when we look at the statistics
dealing with child abuse. Historically, Indian people were the
most loving families you could ever ask for where they all
participated in raising their children. They are literally
known for that kind of loving family and yet we have some of
the highest child abuse in the country. I can only attribute it
to some of the factors you mentioned, drugs, alcohol and so on,
the things that go with a depressed economy and a depressed
society. Sometimes that anger turns inward.
Mr. Hopper, I am interested in the progress the Department
has made and its experience over the past 8 years in
implementing the act. First of all, let me ask is there a
backlog now of security checks of people?
Mr. Hopper. My understanding as of last evening is there is
no backlog of security checks.
The Chairman. There is not. Explain this to me. Is the
Security Division now in two parts with one part being in
Albuquerque and one part being in Washington?
Mr. Hopper. That is somewhat correct, sir. The Office of
Indian Education has its own separate Personnel Security Office
right now that is located in Albuquerque. The other entities
within the BIA have a separate office.
The Chairman. What does one do that the other one does not
do?
Mr. Hopper. They both perform similar duties. One office
concentrates primarily on the 5,000 or so educators and people
who work in the schools, while the other office concentrates on
the employees who work in the trust and tribal services related
programs.
The Chairman. It works better to have one group in
Albuquerque?
Mr. Hopper. Under the reorganization we are going through
right now, they will be merged into one unit and will be
located, at the moment, in Albuquerque, NM, within in the
Office of Law Enforcement Services.
The Chairman. Currently the act requires all authorized
positions within the Department to have regular contact with
children to undergo a character investigation. What is the
Department of the Interior's process for determining whether a
position requires the investigation or not? Is it direct
contact with the children?
Mr. Hopper. Yes; it is. The security personnel in
conjunction with the program side of the house determine which
positions require an investigation. However, when you look at
our education programs, virtually every position has the
preponderance of contact with children and virtually every
position requires a character background checks, whether it is
a janitor or a school principal. We have been doing that now
for many, many years.
The Chairman. In addition to Indian students lot of the
tribal schools now have non-Indian children in the schools
because their parents employees of the tribe or something. In
the process you describe, what governs the positions outside
the BIA Office of Indian Education? Say it is a non-Indian kid
that is enrolled in that school, an Indian school.
Mr. Hopper. Would you mind restating the question?
The Chairman. Many of the schools now on reservations have
mostly Indian children but have some non-Indian children in the
schools because their parents are employees of the tribe or
something of that nature. They are isolated from the city, so
they have them in the same schools with Indian children. How do
you interact with them? What governs the positions dealing with
kids that may not be Indian but are in Indian schools who may
have been abused?
Mr. Hopper. It is the employees that have the background
check, not the children. Are you asking if something happens to
one of the children?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Hopper. The reporting process for any child in the
school would be the same.
The Chairman. The same?
Mr. Hopper. Yes; I would have to defer to one of the staff
to give you an idea of the number of non-Indian children that
may be attending a BIA school.
The Chairman. I don't need the numbers, that is all right.
In 1998, the Office of Inspector General conducted surveys
of character investigations for certain area offices of the
Office of Indian Education and there appears to be a
significant delay in conducting character investigations. Have
you taken any steps to try to speed up that or to improve the
process?
Mr. Hopper. What happened was, the Office of Indian
Education established within their own ranks, an office to deal
with personnel security and that backlog has been reduced. They
are expeditiously processing the background investigations.
The Chairman. The act also requires the Department to
establish an Indian Child Resource and Family Services Center
with a multidisciplinary team. What is the progress of that?
Mr. Hopper. The BIA does use the Child Protection Team
concept if that is what you are referring to in the event that
we have an incident. We have a multidisciplinary team that
works in conjunction with Indian Health Service, the Justice
Department, law enforcement, and whoever else is necessary.
The Chairman. So there is not a physical center where they
work together?
Mr. Hopper. No, sir; it is not a center.
The Chairman. The act also required the Department to
conduct a feasibility study for the Central Registry to collect
data and reports on child abuse. I understand that was not
established but there are apparently some alternatives and
resources for tracking child abuse in Indian country, are there
not?
Mr. Hopper. I don't have the answer to that. I can provide
it to you or call on BIA staff who may know.
The Chairman. Bill, do you know? If somebody does know,
otherwise I would have you provide that to me. Identify
yourself for the record, Bill.
Mr. Mehojah. I am Bill Mehojah, director, Office of Tribal
Services.
Presently, we do not have a central registry in place. Any
reports of child abuse incidents are reported to law
enforcement and they maintain a database or system of counting
those cases but we do not have a central registry.
The Chairman. Then how do you monitor a perpetrator moving
from one jurisdiction to another when he gets a little worried
that somebody may uncover what he has been doing and he moves
to someplace else? Mr. Hopper, if you know that?
Mr. Hopper. If we find a perpetrator and we identify the
individual as an employee, we will take immediate action to put
him on administrative leave until we can perform the due
process. That is when the Department of Justice steps in if
they are going to prosecute. The employee could be fired and
incarcerated. They could never be reemployed with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
If you are asking if there is any possibility they could
somehow be employed with another agency at some later date,
there is no second chance in BIA.
The Chairman. There is no second chance, in other words.
Mr. Hopper. There is no second chance in BIA, that is
correct.
The Chairman. They can't just be transferred as we have
read about and seen in the news with some churches, for
instance?
Mr. Hopper. No; that does not happen. The individual
isolated until such time that we either prosecute or remove
them administratively.
The Chairman. As I understand your testimony, you are
pretty supportive of the bill, S. 1601?
Mr. Hopper. Absolutely.
The Chairman. We want to mark this bill in October and are
kind of running out of time. As you know, we only have maybe
another 6 weeks and we will be out of here for the year. If you
have any suggestions of how we can improve the bill, if you
would contact staff, I would certainly appreciate it because I
would like to mark this up in October if we can.
Mr. Hopper. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Dr. Grim, thank you for appearing today.
What role does the Indian Health Service play in this whole
child abuse investigation realm?
Dr. Grim. We perform a number of services in the child
abuse arena. We perform both clinical, forensic, supportive and
training roles. Clinical services we provide involve direct
assessment and treatment of those people who have been abused.
The Chairman. Counseling programs or something of that
nature?
Mr. Grim. Yes; counseling services, as well as substance
abuse and treatment services may be needed as a result of
abuse. We also provide forensic exams when necessary in our
facilities like the sexual assault forensic exams. We have
protocols and procedures in place to deal with those and
oftentimes our providers who are doing those exams are
sometimes called upon to testify in judicial proceedings.
We also provide supportive services for both families and
victims in the way of social services, counseling, and other
sorts of services that may be necessary. We also train IHS
personnel across the clinical spectrum in identifying,
assessing and treating victims of child abuse or their
families.
The Chairman. We are always talking about budget crunches
around here as you know. Do you find the resources we provide
adequate for you to do a first class job in this area?
Mr. Grim. As always, Senator, we try to do the best we can
with the resources that are available. The major issues that
usually arise are often in our smaller facilities whenever a
provider is called upon, has done a forensic exam perhaps and
is called upon to testify in court. It pulls that provider away
from a clinic for a half a day or a day, then we may experience
decreased access to care in that given clinic. So it does place
occasional burdens on us to deal with these issues but we
always participate fully with the judicial system when
necessary.
The Chairman. I am sure everyone on this committee
appreciates that. With regard to the traditional methods for
restoring health and well being of Indian people, studies
researched by our staff support incorporating cultural
awareness into treatment methods. I understand the Indian
Health Service has an agreement with the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Service Agency to promote that kind of culturally
appropriate action, particularly with children's mental health
services in Indian country. What type of research have you been
conducting on whether that is a successful program or not?
Mr. Grim. You are correct. We do have agreements going on
with SAMHSA right now that have demonstrated successes in
Indian country. Right now we have two Indian Health Service
personnel detailed to SAMHSA, one in the Center for Substance
Abuse Treatment, one in the Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention to help better coordinate the resources of the two
agencies going into Indian country.
Specifically to the culturally appropriate care children's
programs you brought up, we have something called the Circles
of Care Grant Program. It is funded by SAMHSA and both IHS and
SAMHSA are sharing technical assistance roles with tribes and
also evaluation for the 16 tribal programs. We have been
primarily providing technical assistance. SAMHSA has been
providing evaluations through a contract with the University of
Colorado's Health Science Center.
We feel the evaluations provided thus far by Colorado have
indicated a high success in helping tribal programs build the
infrastructure to deal with these problems.
The Chairman. Do you work with Dr. Jim Shore? Do you know
that name? He is with the Medical Sciences Group at the
University of Colorado but I know he has extensive background
in Indian health, having worked on many reservations. I was
just wondering about that.
Mr. Perez. I know the name. I worked with Dr. Manson.
The Chairman. Dr. Grim, I assume you also support this
bill, do you not?
Mr. Grim. Yes, sir; we fully support the bill.
The Chairman. As with Mr. Hopper, if you can give us any
suggestions on how to improve it, I would appreciate it because
we are going to try to mark up the bill in October, as I
mentioned.
Mr. Grim. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you for appearing.
We will now go to our second panel which will be: Mark
Lewis, director of the Guidance Center, Hopi Tribe; Garland
Brunoe, chairman, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs; and
Terry Cross, executive director, National Indian Child Welfare
Association from Portland.
As with our previous panel, if you would like to submit
your complete written testimony, that will be in the record and
we will study that very carefully. If you would like to
abbreviate or diverge from your written testimony, that would
be fine.
We will go ahead and start in the order that I mentioned
with Mr. Lewis first.
STATEMENT OF MARK LEWIS, DIRECTOR, GUIDANCE CENTER, HOPI TRIBE
OF INDIANS
Mr. Lewis. Good morning, Chairman Campbell.
My name is Mark Lewis and I am the administrative director
for the Hopi Guidance Center, Behavioral Health and Social
Services for the Hopi Tribe. I am here as a representative of
the Hopi Tribe and Chairman Wayne Taylor, Jr., who could not be
here today.
The tribe wanted to convey to you that we are very pleased
and honored to be invited to testify on S. 1601, the Indian
Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act of 2003.
Again, my name is Mark Lewis. I am a member of the Hopi
Tribe, a professional social worker by trade and have been with
the Guidance Center for 10 years, beginning as a mental health
clinician and in the last 6 years, administering both
behavioral health and social services which is responsible for
child protective services and behavioral health of our tribe.
The tribe wishes to describe to you our very real
experience as a community and government in implementing the
original act of 1990 and provide important input in advocacy
that we believe will improve and strengthen this act that we
believe is critical in effectively addressing child protection,
child abuse prevention and treatment.
We also wish to endorse the changes of the Act that
Chairman Campbell has provided and we hope to provide other
information that will also strengthen what you have proposed.
As you may be aware, the Hopi Tribe has experienced
directly the tragedy and immense pain associated with abuse of
over 100 of our children, apparently beginning sometime in the
last 1970's which continued until 1987 when a BIA school
teacher was exposed as a prolific pedophile. As a result of
this tragedy and other similar deplorable circumstances in
Indian country, the original act was passed into law and became
one of the primary vehicles for child protection and child
abuse prevention and treatment in Indian country.
We wish to convey that it also must be understood that
tribes in general lacked services, programs and funding to
effectively address child abuse issues prior to the passage of
this act. S. 1601 will improve the act in a number of important
ways. While we encourage Congress to make the changes outlined
in the bill, we also ask that the Act provide adequate funding
to help tribes carryout the original important functions of the
act.
First, the bill expands the current law's requirements for
background checks to include volunteers and employees of other
Federal entities beyond the Bureau and IHS. While the tribe
supports this amendment, it is critical that while adding to
the list of who must have a background check, actual funding
must accompany not just the additions but the current
background check requirements of the act.
By way of background, the Hopi Tribe's law enforcement
departments lack proper funding to adequately meet all of its
law enforcement and investigative needs. We are still a Bureau
operated law enforcement, so they lack adequate funding to
properly meet all of its needs, investigative needs and
investigation of child sexual abuse which many know is a
specialized service.
Today, the Hopi has just two investigators but that is for
all of its criminal investigations across our on-reservation
population of 8,000. The Hopi Guidance Center, the entity for
which I am responsible, and also responsible for child
protective services and mental health and substance abuse
services on the Hopi Reservation has had to rely on periodic
surplus from its Bureau funding base or find alternative
funding streams for these background checks. There is no money
coming as a result of the act to conduct these.
As a governing board member, elected official of the Hopi
Junior/High School they will attest as well that there is no
funding to conduct the background checks on those teachers and
we often rely on the surplus in order to be able to do those
background checks.
S. 1601 calls for the establishment of safety measures for
child protection workers. We certainly support that but it is
indicative of the training needs and other costs associated
with implementing stronger systems and protocols and procedures
in the provision of child protection and child abuse prevention
as well as treatment.
S. 1601 expands the definition of child abuse, mental
health, emotional and well being and self esteem are important
factors in the health of Indian children and children facing
family violence should be able to access child abuse services.
The Tribe agrees with the expanded definition. However, it is
indicative of once again the need to provide adequate financial
resources to investigators, to prosecutors, to courts who will
see more of these cases coming through an already overcrowded
door.
S. 1601 replaces the feasibility study from the original
act and Federal study of impediments to reducing child abuse.
The feasibility study was conducted but the law doesn't reflect
it. The tribe supports what you are doing with your proposal.
We must study and understand the impediments to reducing abuse
in order to make effective decisions at our tribal levels.
S. 1601 emphasizes strengthening tribal infrastructure to
develop effective tribal programs including databases for
accessing current, national central registries for child abuse.
The tribe supports not only this provision but the general
building of administrative infrastructure in general.
Management information systems and other related forms of
technology must be funded as they are necessary these days and
in the height of greater accountability for tribal programs to
effectively administer our particular programs.
While many of these wonderful mandates have come down, the
BIA of Social Services which has the primary responsibility for
social services in Indian country, never receives any increases
as we all know. We need to be able to address those issues with
this act as well as with the current provision of social
services through the Bureau.
In conclusion, the tribe urges the committee to move
forward with the proposed amendments and also to ensure that
its provisions, as well as those of the original act, receive
full funding in order to meet all of these mandates.
Once again, on behalf of the Hopi Tribe and Chairman
Taylor, we thank you for this opportunity to present the issues
and concerns of the Hopi Tribe.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Taylor, Jr., appears in
appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you for appearing here.
Chairman Brunoe, we will go to you now.
STATEMENT OF GARLAND BRUNOE, CHAIRMAN, THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES
OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON
Mr. Brunoe. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good
afternoon.
I am Garland Brunoe, the tribal council chairman of the
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs of Oregon.
Our tribe thanks you for the opportunity to be here today
to testify in support of S. 1601, the Indian Child Protection
and Family Violence Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2003.
This is extremely needed legislation.
The Warm Springs Tribes located in north central Oregon
share many of the modern characteristics of Indian reservation
life. Our communities are rural and many Indian individual
dwellings are isolated. Economic opportunities are limited and
unemployment and poverty rates are persistently high.
Unfortunately, so too are the rates of child abuse and family
violence.
About 4,100 people live on the Warm Springs Reservation,
3,300 are tribal members and of them, 1,617 are younger than 18
years of age. Last year, during 2002, 402 Warm Springs children
were placed under the custody of our Child Protective Services
by tribal court order. This year for 2003, we project 460 of
our children will be placed in CPS custody, a 14-percent
increase over 2002.
These numbers are very distressing and our tribe is doing
all we can to try to address this problem. Because we are
exempt from Public Law 280 and our reservation is almost all
tribal trust land, we have exclusive jurisdiction over child
welfare issues, allowing us to fashion and run a program
without competing State regulations.
We try to work closely with the State of Oregon and are one
of the few tribes in the Nation with a tribal/State Title 4(e),
Foster Care Maintenance Payment Agreement that gives us much
the same footing as a State for developing and maintaining a
foster program.
Even with our fairly comprehensive Child Protection Service
Program, key jurisdictional differences do remain. Non-Indians
in our reservation with criminal child abuse charges have to be
referred to the State and Federal child abuse charges require
calling in the FBI. Also, the local public schools that educate
our children first report signs of child abuse to the State and
the State then sends them along to us.
S. 1601 seeks to address these sorts of problems by
requiring that non-Indians with criminal child abuse charges be
reported to the State and by requiring a study of how
jurisdictional differences hinder the reduction of child abuse.
We also support the bill's expansion of coverage by including
family violence and child abuse, allowing Indian Health
Service's treatment grants for all child abuse victims and
making the Justice Department a part of the Regional Resource
Centers.
We also applaud the clarification that tribal
responsibilities under 638 contracts include cooperation and
reporting on abuse cases, training child protection worker
safety and improved data collection.
More than anything else, the act itself and its funding
must be reauthorized. Addressing child abuse and family
violence is very labor intensive. Our police, our courts, our
prosecutors, our youth services and our medical services are
all involved but Child Protective Services must tie it together
and provide a tremendous range of functions. One on one care
and attention often from specialists is essential. At Warm
Springs, our CPS capacity that delivers those services is
severely strained if not becoming broken.
We have a staff of just 15 including four cases workers who
must each handle more than 110 cases a year. We need assistance
almost across the board.
I am sure other tribes across Indian country have similar
problems. Child abuse and family violence are silent and
generally out of the public eye but they are devastating to our
communities. Consequences are long lasting and far reaching.
This is an issue that must be addressed and passage of S. 1601
is essential to that task.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my testimony.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Brunoe appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Cross.
STATEMENT OF TERRY CROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INDIAN
CHILD WELFARE ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, OR
Mr. Cross. Mr. Chairman, I am Terry Cross. I am the
executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare
Association located in Portland, OR.
Thank you for inviting me to provide this testimony in
support of reauthorization of the Indian Child Protection and
Family Violence Prevention Act. I am submitting full written
testimony for inclusion in the record.
The Chairman. Fine.
Mr. Cross. The National Indian Child Welfare Association is
a national, private, non-profit organization, a membership
organization of tribes and tribal child welfare workers and
tribal child protection workers that provides support to those
workers and tribes who are providing these services in the
field with training, technical assistance, advocacy and
research.
You mentioned in your opening remarks what we call the
natural system of child protection that has existed amongst our
people for generations. This historical framework still helps
support our families and those sacred teachings about children
being gifts of the Creator are still very central to our way of
life and our extended families. If it weren't for those, this
problem would be even worse than it is. In a few minutes I will
come back to talking about how those natural systems can be
supported.
Those natural systems of child protection have been broken
down in the context of substance abuse, poverty, interrupted
parenting, removal and oppression and we all know that one of
the major assaults on Indian people was the removal of the
authority and capacity to protect our own children. I think
Chief Joseph said in his remarks, ``Let me gather the
children.'' Our tribal leaders of the past knew the children
were at the top of the list. There is no expression of tribal
sovereignty more important than the protection of your own
children.
What has happened historically is that the sacred authority
to protect children has been limited and constricted by Federal
policy. Where tribes should be the agent of statutory authority
for the investigation and treatment of child abuse, instead
today we have a patchwork quilt, a tangled web of complex
Federal Indian policy and Federal child welfare policy that
overlap to leave our children out of the configuration of
services. To give you an example of some of that complexity,
you heard here today that because of the Dawes Act, when
reservations are checkerboarded, you sometimes need a guidebook
to know who has authority to investigate which cases. Because
of Public Law 280, you have to have intergovernmental
agreements just to know who has jurisdiction in which cases, in
which States. CAPTA, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act that provides funding to States in this area of child abuse
leaves out tribes completely.
My testimony goes into depth in this area but what I want
to say about this tangled web is it has a lot of consequences
and serious consequences. One of those is there is no good data
about child abuse in Indian country. The number you have here
of 1 in 30 kids abused is the best information we have but we
know that it only accounts for probably 61 percent of the cases
in the country. You can add another 40 percent probably on top
of that 1 in 30.
Part of that untold story is the amount of this issue
attributable to substance abuse. We know that at least 65
percent of child abuse cases are substance abuse related. We
know when you single out the neglect cases, that goes much
higher, as high as 83 percent. We also know the term child
abuse lumps together several different items; neglect, child
abuse and child sexual abuse, and that child neglect actually
accounts for about 83 percent of those overall numbers. When
you look at the relationship between child neglect, poverty and
substance abuse, you start to see why we have such serious
problems.
In addition to that, when we are taking a look at how the
numbers play out, the numbers for child sexual abuse are
actually somewhat lower than mainstream society as best we can
tell. The numbers for child abuse and neglect vary by community
but a surprising piece of information is that most child deaths
in Indian country are not the result of abuse, but are the
result of neglect. Our kids are three times more likely to die
of accidents than any other children in the country. The Indian
Health Service has not addressed this issue at all.
It is important for us to keep in mind that these
statistics have important social impacts and you have heard
several of those talked about, mental health, juvenile justice,
family violence, and other areas. Basic to that, -is the impact
on the very development of our communities themselves, the
development of infrastructure, the economic development, the
impact of life long suffering of children who don't get enough
medical care, children who don't get treatment for serious
depression or for family violence, being victims of family
violence, the costs are very high.
The consequence of this overlapping, tangled web I
mentioned is a very confused set of jurisdictions with unclear
roles and reporting problems. One of the reasons we don't have
good data is because there is no central place for data to be
reported. The national NCANDS database is a database that
records all cases of child abuse reported to States for the
purposes of tracking how many and where. Indian data does not
go in there unless the State has provided the service. If the
tribes have provided those services, then the data doesn't go
in there. It may get reported to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
but the BIA does not report to the NCANDS database and the
numbers you have here on the wall come from the NCANDS
database. That is why I say that 40 percent of the cases out
there are not getting counted.
Another problem is that children end up not getting
protected. We have children in situations where there are no
services, where people point at each other thinking the other
one should be doing it. I want to point out that in child
welfare policy, it is well known that somebody has to be
responsible and the entity with statutory authority is the
place for that responsibility to lie. We know from our work
around the country that when tribes exercise and are empowered
to exercise that statutory authority, then things happen. The
tribe can negotiate those local agreements to overcome this
tangled web. The tribes should be leading the child protection
teams and not the Federal agencies because the Federal agencies
do not have statutory authority. If the tribe doesn't want to
provide the services, they should be able to delegate that
authority to someone else and make that decision themselves.
Again, I reiterate that there is no expression of
sovereignty more important than the protection of children.
That goes for both the criminal and civil side and the only
meaningful solutions to the problems pointed out by Chairman
Brunoe pointed out are local solutions, agreements and
protocols and cross deputizations driven by strong tribal
authority. That strong tribal authority only can come through
funding. We need programs that are non-discretionary, that are
funded to allow tribes to operate the very basics of child
protection. In this very complex arena, tribes need training
and technical assistance. They need to have access to
culturally designed prevention and intervention strategies and
those are growing around the country. Those need to be shared
with one another.
We also need to have the capacity to do child abuse
prevention activities. Every State in the Nation has a
children's trust fund that funds child abuse prevention that
the Federal Government matches under CAPTA. Tribes don't have
access to those dollars unless they go hat in hand to States
and apply for a grant like every non-profit in a State. There
needs to be a Tribal Indian Children's Trust Fund established
so that tribes can do child abuse prevention.
We need to clarify and simplify the background checks and
support it. Right now, it is an unfunded mandate. We need to
reconcile the minimum definitions in this Act with the minimum
definitions in CAPTA.
We support the provisions as proposed. We think S. 1601 is
on the right track but we also want you to consider making sure
the tribes have the funds to operate the programs. It was
disappointing for me every year when I go to the Appropriations
Committee and to see neither the Bureau of Indian Affairs, nor
the Indian Health Service, budget requests funding for this
legislation. We can't continue to have our children treated
this way to have a Federal policy that says they should be
protected but have it be empty and in name only on paper.
Without the appropriations to follow up and provide the
services, it is meaningless.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Cross appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Let me start with you, Mark. I was amazed that you had
somebody down there that in a period of 7 or 8 years, sexually
abused over 100 Hopi kids. Where is that person now?
Mr. Lewis. I understand he is still in Federal prison.
The Chairman. He is in prison?
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
The Chairman. I visited Oraibi a long time ago and I noted
with great interest that those cliffs are pretty high. Too bad
this man got as far as prison, he should have been thrown off
the edge.
Mr. Lewis. They are pretty high.
The Chairman. Mr. Brunoe, I am interested in the issue of
inter-governmental cooperation. We certainly need everybody we
can to be involved in this. You said you had 402 kids in
protective custody and it was a 14-percent increase just from
last year. To what do you attribute that huge increase in a
year?
Mr. Brunoe. The noted increase is coming from substance
abuse.
The Chairman. Substance abuse. Is it the crude stuff like
paint and ``canned heat,'' nail polish, things like that? Is
that the problem you have at Warm Springs with substance abuse?
Mr. Brunoe. I think it is the more readily available meth
labs that are available now in different areas that easily put
this stuff on the street. Since we live on the main highway
that goes from Portland, OR, the major metropolitan and the
State of Oregon, through our reservation on the way to Bend,
OR, we get around 8,000 cars a day that go through our
reservation. So easily some of that stuff is flowing through
our reservation on the way to Bend.
The Chairman. You heard Dr. Grim testify about some of the
forensic exams that can be done, some of the people they have
working in those areas. Are those components with the Indian
Health Service been of value to your tribe when you deal with
the components of child abuse?
Mr. Brunoe. Not responding directly to what Dr. Grim said,
we have five HIS doctors in our wellness center there, the
Indian Health Service clinic and one of the doctors there has
been trained on some of the equipment. She is at the point
where she is overtaxed in the number of child abuse cases that
need the kind of investigation that goes on. Then we need to
send our children to Bend, OR for more in-depth types of review
and the waiting list is about 3 to 4 months long to get a child
in there, to have them see a professional.
The Chairman. 3 to 4 months?
Mr. Brunoe. 3 to 4 months.
The Chairman. For a youngster, that is a lifetime in
remembering some of the things that happened. You said each of
your case workers handles 110 cases a year, about one every
three days is a new case to deal with?
Mr. Brunoe. Right.
The Chairman. How do you balance that with ensuring the
safety of the child protection workers? That is a high
caseload.
Mr. Brunoe. Talking to our CPS manager that runs that, they
do it with a lot of overtime, work beyond your regular 8 hour
days and they know they are pushed to capacity. Since the
Federal funds we get for the 4(e) moneys come through the State
to the tribes, we are very careful to make sure when we go
through our audit from the Federal Government, that we are
doing everything that is required of the Federal Government
along with the State because if they find a finding, we could
end up hurting the State, so the State of Oregon and the Warm
Springs Tribe work closely to make sure our case reviews are
done carefully, that the foster parents are qualified, that the
foster homes are qualified.
It also reaches to the tribal council chambers where not
long ago I had a tribal member come to me who was having their
grandchild removed from them because of the condition of the
home and she wanted me to override that. I explained to her
that if she loved her grandchild, she would go back and take
care of the issue of what the court and the child protective
services wanted, and that I wasn't going to, neither was the
tribal council, tell them what to do and that is difficult to
do.
The Chairman. Did it work?
Mr. Brunoe. Yes; it worked because she spent the weekend
doing what they asked her to do for 4 months.
The Chairman. She didn't initiate a recall, huh?
Mr. Brunoe. No; not yet.
The Chairman. A lot of times we think in terms of
additional resources. The code word for resources, and I
shouldn't say resources but the code word for money in many
cases around here, as you know, and I know we are not doing a
good enough job of providing enough money for a lot of the
problems we have in Indian country. Is there anything you could
speak to or know about that would help in this case that does
not deal specifically with more Federal funding?
Mr. Brunoe. Not at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but if I do, I
will forward it.
The Chairman. If we do a data collection reporting system,
should that include training of tribal employees or would that
be effective?
Mr. Brunoe. That would be important because gathering the
data is something that is essential to funding eventually and
it stabilizes the findings which I know is lacking across
Indian country.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis, I understand the Hopi Children's Code has been a
model code for many Native American communities to follow. When
you set that up, did your tribe invite Federal or State
agencies with any particular expertise to do that or did you do
it with your own tribal resources?
Mr. Lewis. The code was being developed when I was still on
the line so I wasn't able to necessarily be a part of that.
The Chairman. You were where?
Mr. Lewis. I was still on the line providing clinical
services but what I do remember is that the local Federal and
tribal attorneys involved with our cases were a part of
development of that code. I think it is very related to the
Chairman of the Warm Springs Tribe, and that was done with
tribal resources and there were no resources that the tribe had
to do that. When the code was eventually passed, if you look at
the written testimony provided to your office, you will see the
tribe made a decision even I passed its own code, we didn't
know how to necessarily enact it because we didn't have any
money. We ended up doing that with our BIA Social Services
funding because there was no funding to implement child
protective services, part of the code, actually. I can leave
the Hopi Children's Code here if you want it.
We made that decision but we made that decision at the risk
of impacting other important social services like services to
the developmentally disabled, children and adults as well as
substance abuse and chemically addicted populations.
The Chairman. Chairman Brunoe said they have an average of
110 cases a year. What is the Hopi workload?
Mr. Lewis. We have two CPS investigators carrying caseloads
of about 30 apiece.
The Chairman. Per year?
Mr. Lewis. No; at any given time. The issue with that is
that child protective services is a rather burdensome process,
so our efficiency is not as good as it could be because we
simply need more child protective services workers, in addition
to just trying to handle the ICWA cases that come to our agency
which we don't have a worker which we are working on
developing.
The Chairman. Based on your experience with what is
considered a model of this children's code, has your
relationship in working with Federal agencies been good?
Mr. Lewis. I like to believe that we at the Hopi Guidance
Center have really good relations with our State and a lot of
that has to do with approaching the States with a certain
attitude but that doesn't mean there aren't certain barriers
within the States. What I have found in my dealings with the
State is they didn't know how to work with tribes and when they
were willing and ready to work with tribes, they haven't done
enough of it so we had to really form a good collaboration.
We are also the only tribe in Arizona to have a 4(e)
agreement with our State. We are assuming the TANF program
under the guidance center with our State. We are also a mental
health provider with our State system as well as a Medicaid
provider, so we have pretty good experience working with the
State but it hasn't come without its barriers because they
simply don't know how to work well with tribes.
The Chairman. That is rather surprising considering the
number of tribes in Arizona and the long history of Indian
people since there has been a State of Arizona.
Based on your experience, have there been any particular
Federal barriers to what you are trying to do?
Mr. Lewis. As you mentioned before, one of them is having
the unfunded mandate so that puts us in the position of trying
to be as creative as possible. One of the ways we have done
that by obtaining resources like through the State mental
health system and through being very creative and strategic
with our funding that does come down from the Bureau and how we
utilize our surplus but that's certainly been a challenge.
I think related to what the chairman and particularly what
my colleague, Terry Cross mentioned, you mentioned a good point
about is funding the answer to everything. Well, it is the
answer to a lot of things but not everything. When a lot of
this legislation has come down, we don't believe as a tribe,
and it is in our written testimony, that enough clarity is
provided to the Bureau and the IHS in helping to work together
collaboratively to make these Acts happen. These are two of the
major and primary overseers of services and regulation in
Indian country and they are still not in a position where they
are collaborating and sharing information as well as they
should be.
It is wonderful to see my colleagues, Dr. Grim and Dr.
Perez who I know very well, Larry Blair and these folks here
sitting at the table but that is not indicative of how it is
day in and day out at our levels, the Bureau and the IHS
communicating and collaborating together and encouraging the
sharing of Federal resources. There is simply not enough of
that coming from those entities.
The Chairman. Dr. Grim is listening very intently back
there, I notice.
This bill, S. 1601, requires a study of the impediments to
reducing child abuse in Indian communities. Your testimony
certainly supports this idea. What role do you envision the
tribes playing in the study?
Mr. Lewis. There are a couple things I see as the role of
the tribes being involved in the study. One of them is to act
as a principal, if you will, to be able to help guide what some
of the research issues are and we are providing an ongoing role
in the consultation or any sorts of committees that you usually
have when you are doing studies and evaluations.
I also think some money needs to come now to encourage
tribes and encourage the Bureau and the IHS to allow tribes to
be creative in how they can develop better and more expanded
programs to meet the specific needs of its population and the
problems we are seeing associated with child abuse.
The Chairman. I have many Hopi friends and have visited a
few times down there. They are very, very traditional people,
very in tuned with their religious beliefs. Do you feel that
culturally sensitive programs are effective in assisting Indian
children and their families, especially in dealing with
sensitive issues like violence and abuse?
Mr. Lewis. Certainly I agree and the provision that you are
proposing in your legislation is important in all Federal
programming that they take into account the cultural ways and
mores and that they allow that as part of the regulation of
those particular programs, not just with these particular
programs and providing access to traditional healing but also
if you look at the child welfare laws, the Federal legislation
that comes down to our level, the Bureau only more recently has
yet to take into consideration the family and kinship system
and allowing that as a way for us to provide effective child
welfare, mental health and substance abuse services. We are
sometimes limited in the usage of our funding because they
haven't fully taken into account our kinship system. By that, I
mean about 95 percent of Hopi children moved from their homes
are placed within relative homes or clan homes, if you will.
Sometimes the Bureau won't allow us to provide funding to help
provide food for that family because that is not ``under the
Federal regulations.'' They have to be licensed as a foster
home.
Those are some of the ways where we need to allow the
cultural practices to be allowed to be part of our actual day
to day practice and that the funds follow that.
The Chairman. There is no appeal or something that can be
addressed in dealing with that problem, that they are not
licensed as a home but they are still related and want to take
care of those kids?
Mr. Lewis. I am sure if Chairman Taylor was here, he would
laugh and say that is why we sent Mark up here to kind of rebel
rouse and I am sure my colleagues from the Bureau and IHS can
attest to that. They are tired of hearing me at the regional
levels.
The Chairman. I am not tired of hearing it, I think it is a
very good point.
Mr. Lewis. So simultaneously I think our strategy is to
come here and continue to advocate that but on behalf of our
kids, we have done our best effort to try and encourage and
influence families, the relative caretakers, to go ahead and
get the foster care license even though they don't want it.
They just want to take care of their kin but we have had to
work very hard to encourage them to just get licensed so we can
provide you with some funding. We will continue to advocate
these issues here as well.
The Chairman. Is it difficult to get licensed?
Mr. Lewis. Sometimes it is and you have to go through a
number of background checks and families just want to take care
of their kids and need money to help pay for food. I those are
wonderful questions I am glad you asked. If you look in our
written testimony, to bring home the point of social services,
people have forgotten, at least for Arizona, 638 tribes are the
primary funder, the primary regulator of child welfare
services. They have come out with these new regulations in
2000. The problem is in theory, they are okay but they never
consulted Indian Health Services and never consulted Bureau of
Education and they are requiring us to have all those people
help fund a portion of a child's cost if they have to go into
residential treatment but those regulations are not binding on
IHS, nor are they binding on Education and both will tell you
they have no money, yet we are still out of compliance with the
Bureau because of those specific social services regulations.
Again, it is an example of a lack of meaningful consultation
and collaboration between those three entities and then
imposing it on tribal programs such as ours. It is very
difficult to be in compliance with those. The money, we can't
use it.
The Chairman. That means in some cases a youngster would be
taken out of the family and would be put into a home as a first
priority but the family that would want to take care of him
often cannot? I am not a child psychologist but it wouldn't
seem to me that is in the best interest of the child.
Mr. Lewis. It is not in the best interest of the child but
sometimes it is in the best interest of the child to put
somebody in a professional treatment facility because the
extended family are kin that are willing to take them in are
maybe as dysfunctional as the family they come from. That is
where it is key and it is critical.
The Chairman. Thank you for that insight.
Terry, thank you for your testimony. In your written
testimony, your concerns related to the data reporting of child
abuse and neglect and recommended technical assistance provided
in this area. From your perspective, what infrastructure do
tribes need to develop an effective reporting and data
collecting system?
Mr. Cross. First of all, it is access or the capability to
have a management information system to track and record that
information and then report it so the development of
technology. Also, the technical assistance with which to
develop their own fields for those management information
systems, the words they use for how they are defining abuse and
neglect or how they are defining family an all those are things
that have to be developed locally but in a framework that can
be translated to a central database. We are working on a
project funded by ACF to demonstrate with five tribes how that
can be done.
The Chairman. You say in your testimony that about 61
percent of the incidents are reported to a national database.
Is that correct?
Mr. Cross. Those are the cases that make it into the NCANDS
database through the State systems.
The Chairman. So you do support having Indian children
reported to the NCANDS database?
Mr. Cross. I do because that is the central database that
measures trends nationally. To create a system parallel to that
would be one more layer. It is an ongoing, funded program in
the Federal Government that Indian tribes should have access to
just like States.
The Chairman. You are from Portland, correct?
Mr. Cross. That's right.
The Chairman. Are there data available to the extent of
Indian kids living in Portland, urban Indian kids?
Mr. Cross. There is not good data available for urban
Indian children. There is a tremendous under count in the urban
centers largely because Indian children are often not
identified even for purposes of ICWA in State systems.
The Chairman. Also, in your testimony you mention that some
tribes have a memoranda of understanding with Federal and State
agencies to ensure that all appropriate agencies respond to
incidents of child abuse. Do most in your State have that
agreement?
Mr. Cross. They do. As I mentioned the local protocol
agreements, when you have a reservation that is checkerboarded
or where you in a 280-State and there is the sharing of
jurisdiction, there are tribal police, county sheriffs and the
FBI, if those agencies don't come together, put down on paper
and sit down at the table together and discuss who is going to
do what when, historically cases of abused children just fall
through the cracks and nobody responded. Unfortunately there is
not enough of those agreements because they are complex to put
together and they end up being caught up in other kinds of
politics like water rights, taxation or just getting people to
sit down at the table with one another to work out those things
can be very difficult.
The Chairman. In some cases, we have looked into trying to
consolidate Federal programs to decrease duplication to get a
better result for the money we have appropriated. Are there any
other Federal programs that you think could be a model that
would be applicable to abuse, neglect, alcoholism related
problems that we could look at here?
Mr. Cross. Earlier you mentioned resources in your
questions. One of the major issues is if we just had access to
the entitlements that all children have, title 4(e) being the
major one. As you know, we have a bill pending right now to get
tribes direct access to Title 4(e). That would be the biggest
thing to happen to tribal child welfare since the Indian Child
Welfare Act.
It would provide resources to tribes and those tribes who
have agreements are tapping into those resources somewhat but
many tribes only get the foster care payment and don't get the
caseworker dollars, don't get the recordkeeping dollars, don't
get the training dollars associated with 4(e). If that alone
was corrected, it would make a huge dent in this.
The formula distribution of funds under CAPTA to States is
very small. I understand recently two States turned back their
money because the mandates were too stringent for them to take
for $200,000. I think HHS ought to give any money turned back
by States to the tribes to do prevention work.
The major concern I would have in consolidating funding
across programs is that when it is child abuse and neglect, you
have to be careful to ensure the provision of that service for
children and somehow protect those dollars from being drained
off into other important priorities of the tribe.
One of the ways in general that the Federal Government
enforces policy is through its power of the purse strings and
saying you can have this money if you, meet certain conditions.
As a child advocate, I need to say it is important to say to
everyone, you can have these Federal dollars if you protect
your children. I want to make sure in any creative solutions we
come to, that those services currently available and any future
services might be available for children are protected in some
way.
The Chairman. I think that is all the questions I have.
Other members may have questions and they will submit them in
writing to you. Senator Inouye probably does.
I appreciate your being here and as I told the first
witnesses, if you have some suggestions on how we can improve
this bill--and we have been jotting down a few of them that we
got from your testimony today--I certainly would appreciate
your supplying them. We are going to keep open the record for
about 2 weeks and if you could forward any suggestions to us,
we are going to try to mark this bill up in October as I
mentioned.
Thank you so much for being here and the committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
=======================================================================
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii,
Vice Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs
I am pleased to join my chairman today in receiving testimony on a
bill to reauthorize the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence
Act. Surely, there can be no more precious resource than our children.
It is essential that we work together to assure that the children
of Indian country are protected from abuse, and that we continue to
improve upon our data collection efforts as well as our ability to
track those who have abused children in the past and who are looking
for havens in Indian country, so that we may 1 day be able to eliminate
this scourge from the lives of those we hold so dear.
I am glad to see that the departments who will present testimony to
the committee today support the reauthorization of this important act.
______
Prepared Statement of Garland Brunoe, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of
the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Garland Brunoe,
chairman of the tribal council of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs Reservation of Oregon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today in support of S. 1601, the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2003.
In presenting this testimony, I would like to acknowledge Warm
Springs Tribal Judge Lola Sohappy, who is very involved in child
welfare on our reservation, an active member of the National Indian
Child Welfare Association, and who has been communicating with your
staff regarding this legislation.
The 650,000 acre Warm Springs Reservation in north Central Oregon
is the home of about 3,287 of our 4,160 tribal members. Additionally we
estimate about 950 non-members also reside on our reservation. Within
our residential population, 1,617 of our tribal members, or close to 40
percent, are younger than 18 years old.
Like many reservations, our communities are rural, and individual
residences are often isolated. Economic opportunities are limited, and
unemployment and poverty are well above national averages by almost any
measure. So, too, are substance abuse and violence, including family
violence. When much of your population is young, that violence all too
often involves children.
Unfortunately, this applies at Warm Springs. In 2002, 402 Warm
Springs children were placed in custody of Warm Springs Child
Protection Services [CPS] by tribal court order. This is 25 percent of
all our children. For 2003, we project 460 children will be in the
custody of CPS, a 14-percent increase from 2002.
Our tribe is doing all we can to address this very serious issue.
While our basic capacity in this field is strained, we are trying to
make use of our unique circumstances.
Our population is not large, and because Warm Springs is exempt for
Public Law 280 and our reservation is almost a solid block of tribal
trust land, we exercise exclusive jurisdiction over our tribal child
welfare cases. We have our own Child Protective Services agency, and do
not have to rely on the State for case management, investigations, and
other services. Without the competing demands of State regulation, we 1
are able to craft our policies and actions in a manner that is
sensitive to the needs of our own community.
While we exercise our own jurisdiction, we do try to work closely
with the State of Oregon. Warm Springs is one of the few tribes
nationwide that has developed a tribal-State title IV-e foster care
maintenance payment agreement with the State of Oregon that allows the
tribe to receive Federal funds for maintenance payments for children
placed in foster care. The agreement also allows the tribe to receive
an administrative match for services, training, and associated expenses
for children qualifying for IV-e support. This allows the tribe to
participate on the same footing as a State in developing and
maintaining a foster care program for tribal children rather than
placing them in the custody of the state for these services.
Warm Springs still has an array of jurisdictional issues with which
we must deal. Criminal child abuse actions by non-Indians must be
addressed by the State. When Federal crimes are specifically
identified, be they Indian or non-Indian related, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation must be called in. And because Warm Springs children
attend local public schools, any child abuse or neglect issues
identified there are reported first to, the county, and only thereafter
to our Child Protective Services or the Warm Springs Police Department.
Jurisdictional issues are complicated and not easy to resolve, but
improved communication and coordination can help. Accordingly, we
strongly support section 4 of S. 1601, which would require tribes to
report non-Indians to State law enforcement agencies in abuse or family
violence occurrences where a criminal violation is indicated.
For similar reasons, we also support section 5, directing a study
of impediments to the reduction of child abuse, including
intergovernmental and Jurisdictional impediments.
We strongly support the various ways in which the act is expanded.
Section 3 extends the ``child abuse'' definition to children subjected
to family violence. Section 6 includes Federal and tribal contract and
volunteer personnel in background checks, and makes those
investigations tougher. Section 7 extends applicability of IHS
treatment grants to all child abuse victims, not just sexual abuse
victims. And the addition of the Department of Justice in the staffing
and operation of the Regional Resource Centers, as provided in section
8, will advance communication, cooperation, and successful prosecution
of child abuse matters.
The clarification and extension of responsibilities are also
applied to tribes, which we agree is essential. Section 9 requires that
tribes operating their own Child Protection and Family Violence
Prevention program under a contract from the BIA must clearly designate
responsibility for child abuse case coordination and reporting, and for
the treatment and prevention of child abuse. The section further helps
tribally operated programs by authorizing tribes to provide training
for any required child protection certifications, to help ensure the
safety of child protection workers while on the job, and to improve
data systems for case and program monitoring and evaluation. Annual
tribal program reports to the Interior Secretary would also have to
include information on training, threats to worker safety, and
community outreach and awareness efforts.
But more than anything else, the overall reauthorization of the
Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, and its
funding, is essential.
Child abuse and family violence continue to devastate Indian
communities. Because these problems tend to occur in private and the
victims are frightened and silent, they do not attract much public
attention. But their consequences are far reaching and long lasting. At
Warm Springs, as I noted earlier, children in custody of our Child
Protection Services this year are projected to increase by 14 percent
from 2002. For last year, 2002, our Police Department reported 338
child abuse and 50 family violence cases opened for investigation for
criminal charges, an increase of 29 percent from 2001 for these two
types of violence. I should note that some of this increase should be
attributable to improved data collection started in 2002. But in any
event, whether the real increase might have been 10 percent or 15
percent or more, the fact remains we experienced a significant jump in
the level of child abuse and family violence. At least at Warm Springs,
and most probably nationwide, child protection and family violence
prevention absolutely requires increased attention and assistance.
Because child abuse and family violence are often hidden from view
and their consequences can be so personal and profound, child
protection and the prevention of associated family violence is very
labor intensive. Abused or neglected children require attentive and
careful handling. Their family situations can often be explosive. At
Warm Springs, in addition to our Child Protective Services agency,
child protective activities significantly involve the tribal police,
the tribal court, tribal prosecution, community services, and medical
personnel including mental health practitioners and physicians
experienced in child abuse forensics.
But the leading agency that ties these diverse function together is
Child Protective Services. CPS has a multi-faceted and complicated
task. It must investigate child abuse charges, it must remove children,
it must temporarily shelter abused children, and find short term and
long term foster residences, which must be monitored. Currently, Warm
Springs CPS maintains 40 foster homes. CPS must provide for the direct
needs of the child, including medical, counseling, and treatment needs,
the child's clothing and education, and even, if needed, transportation
to appointments. And CPS is also responsible for working to reunite the
family, including all family counseling activities. CPS must be engaged
with the prosecution of child abuse-related criminal charges. And
throughout all this, they must meet rigorous reporting requirements. At
Warm Springs, where CPS will have a projected 460 children under its
custody this year, the regular CPS staff totals about 15 personnel,
including 4 case workers, each of whom must handle more than 110 cases
a year. We also engage seven full time Protective Care Providers to
operate our 24 hour Emergency Shelter.
Clearly, our child protection capacity at Warm Springs desperately
needs attention and assistance, almost across the board. But based on
our own circumstance, areas of particular need include an additional
Warm Springs police investigator and tribal prosecutor to develop and
try solid child abuse cases against adults. We need improved access to
examinations and forensic interviewing in sexual abuse cases, and
because of the traumatic nature of child abuse, mental health and
follow-on care need to be significantly expanded. Juvenile Services
needs support. And we need training for our CPS staff. We also need a
means of capturing and interpreting data.
Mr. Chairman, this is a long list just from our tribe. But it
serves to highlight the level of attention that Indian child protection
and family violence prevention needs nationwide. S. 1601 is an
essential step in meeting that challenge, and the Warm Springs Tribes
support it and urge the committee to approve it.
Thank you. That concludes my testimony. I shall be pleased to
respond to any questions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.069