INDIAN CHILD WELFARE CASE REVIEW TRAINING

1. INDIAN CHILD WELFARECASE REVIEWTRAINING “ALL THINGS ARE CONNECTED LIKE THE BLOOD WHICH UNITES ONE FAMILY” -CHIEF SEATTLE

2. Washington State Indian Child Welfare Case Review Training WELCOME

3. PURPOSE Improve quality of practice and compliance with:

4. What is different in the Washington State ICWA? • Defines “active efforts” and “the best interests of the Indian child”. • Requires a good faith effort to determine whether a child is an Indian child and the act applies. • Clarifies when a Tribe’s determination on a child’s membership is conclusive and how to proceed if a tribe fails to respond. • Defines who can be considered a “qualified expert witness.”

5. History of ICW CASE REVIEW • Collaboration with Tribal partners began in 2005 to develop the ICW review • First ICW review occurred in 2007 • Second ICW review occurred in 2009 • The ICW tool was updated in 2011 incorporating elements of the 2011 Washington State ICWA

6. Principles of the ICW Case Review • Partner with Tribes and Indian Organizations • Increase staff knowledge of Indian Child Welfare • Improve practice to meet the best interests of Indian children • Share practice ideas of what IS working • Identify systemic barriers

7. CombatingDisproportionality&Disparity 2008 Statewide Disproportionality Report Found: • Indian Children were 1.6 times as likely to be removed from home. • Indian Children were 2.2 times as likely to remain in foster care for over two years. • Indian children were less likely to be adopted within two years

8. MAP http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1C81EECF-EDBA-40D8-B85F-E488EB29885E/0/WTPIVBMapsb_Tribes.pdf

9. RECOGNIZED AMERICAN INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS 6

10. 2012 ICW Case Review Team A BLENDED TEAM OF REVIEWERS: • Washington State Tribes • Recognized American Indian Organizations (RAIO) • CA Social Workers, Supervisors, and Managers • Office of Indian Policy Managers • Central Case Review Team

11. Qualifications and Characteristics of the Indian Child Welfare Case Reviewer • Minimum of two years experience working in ICW • Complete ICW training • Culturally responsive • Collaborative and open approach

12. On-Site Review Process • Large sample-217 cases reviewed in 2009 • Reviews in six locations across the state • Four day reviews • Review teams comprised of 10-12 people • Tribal and state reviewers read case together to determine ratings • Consensus building • Review team debrief • Exit meeting with staff upon completion

13. Practice Improvement Activities • REGIONAL & STATEWIDE REPORTS • IDENTIFY IMPROVEMENT GOALS • ACTION PLANS

15. REVIEW TEAM DEBRIEF

16. REVIEW TEAM EXIT MEETING • Occurs with CA Managers and • Social Workers • Identifies Strengths and Areas Needing • Improvement

17. 8 Inquiry of Indian Status Active Efforts/ Collaboration with Tribes Cultural Connections Dependency WELL-BEING PERMANENCY Placement Preference Safety

18. Inquiry of Indian Status • Asking mother and father regarding Indian ancestry • Inquiry with Tribes to determine Indian status • Timeliness

19. Active EffortsCollaboration With Tribes • ACTIVE EFFORTS WITH FATHER and MOTHER • ENGAGEMENT OF CHILDREN • JURISDICTION • CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATION WITH • THE CHILD’S TRIBE • FTDM and LICWAC STAFFINGS

20. Cultural Connections • ENCOURAGE INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOR INDIAN FAMILIES • SUPPORT THE CHILD’S PARTICIPATION IN TRIBAL CUSTOMS AND ACTIVITIES • SUPPORT THE CHILD’S CONTACT WITH PARENTS AND EXTENDED FAMILY.

21. Dependency • NOTIFICATION TO TRIBES PRIOR TO COURT HEARINGS • QUALIFIED EXPERT WITNESS

22. Placement Preference • IDENTIFY and FOLLOW THE TRIBE’S PLACEMENT PREFERENCE

23. Safety • IS THE CHILD SAFE WHEN LIVING IN THE FAMILY HOME? • IS THE CHILD SAFE IN OUT OF HOME CARE?

24. Well-Being • EDUCATION • PHYSICAL HEALTH • MENTAL/BEHAVIORIAL HEALTH

25. Permanency SUFFICIENT and TIMELY ACTIONS TO COMPLETE THE PERMANENT PLAN

26. CONFIDENTIALITY CONFLICT OF INTERERST