DOCSLIB.ORG

States' Consultation and Collaboration with Tribes And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
States' Consultation and Collaboration with Tribes And States’ Consultation and Collaboration with Tribes and Reported Compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act: Information from States’ and Tribes’ 2015–2019 Child and Family Services Plans This report was prepared by the Children’s Bureau (ACYF, ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Assistance was provided by ICF International (Contract Order # HHSP23320110015YC). Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Summary and Key Themes ........................................................................................................................... 2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Consistency Between Tribe and State CFSPs ........................................................................................... 3 Key Ways in Which States Consult with Tribes ....................................................................................... 3 Key Ways in Which States Assess Compliance with ICWA .................................................................... 3 Key Data Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Key Efforts by States to Promote and Ensure Compliance with ICWA ................................................... 4 Key Barriers, Challenges, and Needs........................................................................................................ 5 Strengths and Areas of Concern Derived from Tribes’ CFSPs ................................................................. 5 State-by-State Summary of ICWA Compliance Information ....................................................................... 6 Issue Outline for State and Tribal CFSPs: Elements Related to ICWA and State-Tribal Consultation and Collaboration............................................................................................................................................... 12 State CFSPs ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Tribal CFSPs ........................................................................................................................................... 13 Alabama ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Alaska ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Arizona ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 Tohono O’odham ................................................................................................................................ 23 Salt River Maricopa ............................................................................................................................ 24 Pascua Yaqui ....................................................................................................................................... 24 Navajo Nation ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Arkansas ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 California .................................................................................................................................................... 29 Yurok Tribe ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Smith River Rancheria ........................................................................................................................ 42 Washoe Tribe ...................................................................................................................................... 43 Colorado ...................................................................................................................................................... 45 Connecticut ................................................................................................................................................. 49 Delaware ..................................................................................................................................................... 52 District of Columbia ................................................................................................................................... 53 Florida ......................................................................................................................................................... 54 Georgia ........................................................................................................................................................ 57 1 Hawaii ......................................................................................................................................................... 60 Idaho ........................................................................................................................................................... 63 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes .................................................................................................................. 67 Illinois ......................................................................................................................................................... 70 Indiana ........................................................................................................................................................ 76 Iowa ............................................................................................................................................................ 80 Kansas ......................................................................................................................................................... 84 Kentucky ..................................................................................................................................................... 87 Louisiana ..................................................................................................................................................... 89 Maine .......................................................................................................................................................... 93 Penobscot Nation ................................................................................................................................ 98 Maryland ................................................................................................................................................... 100 Massachusetts ........................................................................................................................................... 104 Michigan ................................................................................................................................................... 111 Keweenaw Bay Indian Community .................................................................................................. 114 Minnesota .................................................................................................................................................. 117 Mississippi ................................................................................................................................................ 121 Missouri .................................................................................................................................................... 124 Montana .................................................................................................................................................... 128 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes ......................................................................................... 131 Chippewa Cree .................................................................................................................................. 132 Nebraska ................................................................................................................................................... 134 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska .......................................................................................................... 137 Nevada ...................................................................................................................................................... 140 Washoe Tribe .................................................................................................................................... 143 New Hampshire
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Heartbeat Fall 2017
    Heartwood P.O. Box 543 Tell City, IN 47586 heartwood.org Fall Edition 2017 Unprecedented Threat to Our National Forest by Kentucky Heartwood The U.S. House of Representatives is currently disclose the effects of the project. Public notice and considering H.R. 2936, the deceitfully-named Resilient opportunities for public input will amount to a single Federal Forests Act of 2017. The bill is sponsored by 30-day comment period over an abbreviated proposal Representative Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, whose that may provide only a few pages of information. And largest campaign donor is the timber industry. The that’s it. Westerman bill truly represents one of the greatest The authorities to use Categorical Exclusions under the threats to our public national forests since their inception. Westerman bill are unbelievably broad, and include the If you think our public lands should be more than lawless purposes of “produce(ing) timber” and “creat(ing) early timber farms for the forest products industry, please successional forests for wildlife habitat improvement read on and then call your member of Congress. and other purposes.” Early successional habitat means The bill is extensive, and can be read in its entirety and clearcuts and other similar regeneration harvests. tracked at Congress.gov. Below we summarize some of the Categorical Exclusions are also granted for a wide range most concerning provisions that will directly affect of thinning and salvage projects. Kentucky’s Daniel Boone National Forest and Land Weakening Between the Lakes National Recreation Area. endangered species’ protections No environmental reviews for logging The bill does away with requirements under Section 7 projects up to 10,000 acres of the Endangered Species Act that ensure the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management consult with The Westerman bill carves out a large number of “Categorical Exclusions” for logging projects on national the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts the FOLK IMAGINARY in AMERICAN LITERATURE, 18
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts THE FOLK IMAGINARY IN AMERICAN LITERATURE, 1875 - 1925 A Dissertation in English by William Kelley Woolfitt © 2012 William Kelley Woolfitt Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2012 The dissertation of William Woolfitt was reviewed and approved* by the following: Linda Selzer Associate Professor of English Dissertation Adviser Chair of Committee John Marsh Assistant Professor of English Shirley Moody-Turner Assistant Professor of English Daniel Letwin Associate Professor of History Garrett Sullivan Professor of English Director of Graduate Studies, English *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. ii ABSTRACT In the first issue of the Journal of American Folk-lore in 1888, William W. Newell called for the scientific collection and study of the “fast vanishing remains” of the cultures of three American ethnic groups: African Americans, Native Americans, and Anglo-Americans (implicitly including Appalachians who lived in “the remote valleys of Virginia and Tennessee”). While arguing for the value and complexity of these folk cultures and mourning their demise, Newell also suggested that the folk were in need of reform, linking them to “witchcraft,” “superstitions,” “important psychological problems,” “much that seems to us cruel and immoral,” “rudeness,” and “licentiousness.” Newell’s call for the study of folk cultures points to the competing pressures for marginalized American ethnic groups to maintain their old ways and to modernize, to never change and to change at once. The Folk Imaginary in American Literature, 1875 – 1925 investigates the ways in which the competing tensions between preservation and reform circulate in the work of American fiction writers who represent the folk; who explore the ways in which the folk initiate and respond to social, economic, and political change; and who imagine folk culture as a resource that can enrich or revitalize national identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky's Annual Progress and Services Report for Fiscal Year 2021, 2020 Submission
    Kentucky’s Annual Progress and Services Report for Fiscal Year 2021, 2020 Submission Child and Family Services Plan for Fiscal Years 2020-2024 1 2020 APSR Submission Commonwealth of Kentucky Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 A. Agency Administration and Organization ...................................................................................................... 4 B. Legislative Updates ........................................................................................................................................ 4 C. Child Welfare Continuum and Ongoing Collaboration .................................................................................. 5 I. Annual Progress and Services Report ................................................................................................................ 7 A. Accomplishments Regarding Goal One: Improve safety outcomes for children during all phases of child welfare intervention................................................................................................................................................ 7 B. Accomplishments Regarding Goal Two: Ensure that appropriate services are available that expand prevention continuum and are provided to meet the needs of families and children in Kentucky.10 C. Accomplishments Regarding Goal Three: Increase the timeliness to appropriate permanency for all children in OOHC. ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky Child and Family Services Plan 2020-2024
    Kentucky Child and Family Services Plan 2020-2024 Department for Community Based Services, Division of Protection and Permanency Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 4 II. Collaboration and Vision ........................................................................................................................... 4 Agency Administration and Organization ................................................................................................. 4 Collaboration............................................................................................................................................. 4 Vision Statement ....................................................................................................................................... 7 III. Assessment of Current Performance in Improving Outcomes ................................................................ 8 Child and Family Outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 8 Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect .................... 8 Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Permanency Outcome 1: Children have
    [Show full text]
  • Hip: 173 Trainer Name: William Moore
    STAY SAFE (3RM28, 4, Mare, Pace) Sire: TIGERAMA Dam: HANDS OFF MY LOVER Sire of Dam: RAMBARAN Registered Owners: Andy C Moore , SARNIA, ON, CA P Transfer Date: 2/28/2020 Paperless Certificate held electronically at the USTA Hip: 173 Trainer Name: William Moore Year Gait Starts 1st 2nd 3rd Money Won Record Time Track Code (4 starts) (4 starts) (5 starts) (5 starts) Andy Moore Money Won Wins Money Won Wins Lifetime Totals: 3 $12,403 $3,938 0 $4,132 0 Domestic LTD: 19 3 2 1 $12,403 3,2:00.3 Lon Avg $ Per Start 2021 Pace 13 2 0 0 $6,591 4,2:01.1 Clntn $507.00 2020 Pace 6 1 2 1 $5,812 3,2:00.3 Lon $968.67 Stewards Lists: Lasix: EPP: Coggins: 07/27/21 StdCA Page 1 of 2 Date Purse Temp Cond Dist Rc Time Act Tm $ Won Driver/Trainer Domestic Lifetime Winnings Claimed Track Class Post 1/4 1/2 3/4 Str Fin Call Comment LQ Odds Competition 08/15/2021 3,520 75 - 1 FT 1 29.0 100.4 131.2 201.1 201.1 1,760 Andy C Moore/William A Moore 12,403 Race 1 Leam NW10500LCD 5 1 1 1 1/ns 1/nk 29.4 18.70 STAY SAFE,BO DOVER,MINNIE MILLION 08/08/2021 3,520 77 - 1 FT 1 29.1 59.2 129.4 159.3 159.4 282 Andy C Moore/William A Moore 10,643 Race 1 Leam NW10000LCD 3 1 2 3 4/2 4/1 29.4 17.00 SHES A GUNSLINGER,WEST COAST KID,DRAGON TEEN 08/01/2021 3,680 73 FT 1 29.0 101.1 131.3 202.0 10,361 Race 10 Dres 15000CLMCD scr scr LITERALLY HANOVER,KISS IT BETTER,JOE ROCKHEAD 07/25/2021 3,840 84 FT 1 30.0 101.0 131.1 201.0 201.4 Andy C Moore/Andy C Moore 10,361 Race 12 Dres NW15000LCD 5 4 5 5 6/4t 6/3t 29.3 12.30 CANTSTOPTHEFEELIN,LIL MEMORIES,FAITHFULS NOLA 07/18/2021 3,792 78 FT 1
    [Show full text]
  • State Recognized Panel
    The Issue of State Recognition One of the most controversial issues facing Native Americans in Kentucky today is the issue of state recognized tribes. What does it mean to be state recognized? According Santa Clara Law review,“State recognition is an alternative tribal status to formal federal recognition much like federal recognition, it operates as a means for states to acknowledge the longstanding existence of tribes within their borders and to establish a government to government relationship to coordinate and communicate with tribes. State recognition is also a prerequisite to certain federal and state benefits meant to foster and preserve indigenous communities and to facilitate mutually beneficial relationships following centuries of conflict. “ Why is there controversy over this issue? Those opposed to state recognition believe that these groups will siphon off federal grant and scholarship money away from established groups. They also have conflict that many of these The first areas of Kentucky to be groups are frauds, who have lax requirements for proof that their members are of Native American decent, and that many charge for membership, or they are really just social clubs. In Kentucky: Three Kentucky Cherokee “tribes” have been determined to be frauds by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, including the Cherokee Tribe of Kentucky, The Kentucky Cherokee Heritage Group, and the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky. The last group, the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky sought federal status in September of 2006. They did not receive federal status and tried to pass off a letter of tribute by the governor of Kentucky as state recognition.
    [Show full text]
  • Couple Charged in Death of Infant Son
    Sports| Page 9| Cole first Burton player in All-Star softball game. Homespun| Page 10| Cooks & Books July 30 in St. Paul. FRIDAY the July 22, 2016 Vol. 105 • No. 59 16 Pages NORTON, VA 24273 USPS 120-120 $1.00 A Progressive Newspaper Serving Our Mountain Area Since 1911 PROGRESS Couple charged in death of infant son It is the policy of The Coalfield Both of the Pound each of child abuse and neglect. Progress not to publish information Each charge is punishable by up to that could identify the victim of a couple’s twin infant sons 10 years in prison. sex crime. died last year under The crimes are alleged to have taken place between April 26-May JEFF LESTER unusual circumstances. 1, 2015. NEWS EDITOR According to Wise County sher- child abuse and neglect in associa- iff’s investigators, the couple’s A Pound man was recently tion with the June 2015 death of the infant son Franklin died June 2 of charged in the August 2015 death of infant’s twin brother. last year. his infant son. Monday, the grand jury charged Lt. Tim Wagner said a medical This week, a Wise County grand Franklin Len Mullins, 44, and Viola examiner determined the cause of jury handed down indictments Marie Mullins, 43, of 8845 Maple charging the man and his wife with Lane Rd., Pound, with two counts INDICTMENTS, PAGE 3 Franklin Len Mullins Viola Marie Mullins Drone to pursue better reclamation ATV trail Town cuts ribbon next week Coeburn’s long wait to become part of the Spearhead Trails regional multi-use trail system is about to pay off.
    [Show full text]