Bill Overview
Title: Strengthening Tribal Families Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires a state plan for child welfare services and a state plan related to the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program to ensure that the state shall comply with all federal standards established under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Additionally, the bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services to submit biennial reports to Congress on certain reviews of child and family service programs.
Sponsors: Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-27]
Target Audience
Population: Native American and Alaska Native individuals involved in or impacted by child welfare services
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill updates state plans related to child welfare services and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program to comply with Indian Child Welfare Act standards.
- The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 is federal legislation that aims to keep American Indian children with American Indian families.
- Given that the legislation ensures compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act, it directly impacts Native American and Alaska Native populations, especially those involved in the child welfare system.
- The bill's requirements affect state child welfare services across the United States that engage with Native American families.
Reasoning
- I considered the diversity within the Native American community and how some people may be more directly touched by the policy than others, especially families directly involved with the child welfare system.
- The budget constraints and the focus on state-level child welfare programs also imply that not all of the Native American and Alaska Native community will have equal access or need for the services covered under the policy.
- The policy aims to improve compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act, which particularly affects families involved with child welfare services, hence the focus on individuals from those communities.
- A commonness score helps reflect how prevalent each scenario might be within the overall affected population.
Simulated Interviews
social worker (Navajo Nation, Arizona)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a positive step towards better supporting Native families.
- It will provide necessary guidelines to ensure children remain within their communities, which is crucial for cultural preservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
lawyer (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring compliance with ICWA is long overdue and necessary for protecting Native culture.
- This will provide stronger legal frameworks for supporting native children's rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
student (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am not directly impacted by child welfare services, but I see it as a positive for my community.
- Better child welfare services align with our cultural values.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
unemployed (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that strengthens family rights and keeps our children within the community is needed.
- Hopefully, this reduces the trauma our children face.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
teacher (Mesa, Arizona)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a significant move towards national recognition of our rights under ICWA.
- Education plays a vital role in supporting these children.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
retired (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I am not personally involved, this policy represents overdue support for respecting Native family structures.
- Preserving family units is tied to preserving our culture.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
healthcare worker (Reno, Nevada)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies that align with ICWA help our families stay connected.
- Healthcare often supports these families, so this benefits us in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
community organizer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strengthening ICWA compliance reflects social justice for Native families.
- Our community will benefit gradually as the changes take effect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
caseworker (Rapid City, South Dakota)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The update will help us advocate for better practices in managing our community's needs.
- It's a win for the well-being of Native children in care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
tribal council leader (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It strengthens our position in negotiations concerning our children's futures.
- This policy enables tribes to have more voice in welfare discussions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $9500000 (Low: $7500000, High: $11500000)
Year 3: $9500000 (Low: $7500000, High: $11500000)
Year 5: $9000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $11000000)
Year 10: $8500000 (Low: $6500000, High: $10500000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring that state child welfare programs effectively align with the federal ICWA standards and handle the transition smoothly.
- The financial implications of additional reporting requirements imposed on the Department of Health and Human Services.
- Potential risk of non-compliance by states leading to increased federal oversight or intervention costs.