HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
NOVEMBER 10, 1987
60
STATEMENT OF JOHN CASTILLO, CHAIRMAN, ICWA TASK FORCE,
ORANGE COUNTY INDIAN CENTER, GARDEN GROVE, CA
Mr. CASTILLO. My name is John Castillo. I am the Indian Child
Welfare Task Force chairperson. I have summarized my statement
as best as possible. We are honored to have the opportunity to
speak before this committee today. The American Indian Mental
Health Task Force is a southern California grass-roots organization
concerned about the mental health and welfare of Indian communi-
ties, particularly Indian children and families. The task force is
comprised of members from the following Indian community orga-
nizations: Southern California Indian Centers, Los Angeles County
Department of Mental Health, American Indian Program Develop-
ment, Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services,
American Indian Child Service Workers, Escondido Indian Child
Welfare Consortium, Los Angeles Indian Free Clinic, Southern
California American Indian Psychologists.
The following is our testimony. Today, 63 percent of American
Indian people live in the cities, and Los Angeles is the home of the
largest urban Indian population in the United States. We are the
second largest urban Indian population. We are the second largest
Indian community in the Nation. Members from over 200 different
tribes now live in the area, and three-fifths of all urban Indians
live below the poverty level, and in Los Angeles the poverty rate
for American Indian people is 45 percent.
Indian people have the highest high school dropout rate, 23 per-
cent, and if you were to include the number of students who never
enter high school, this figure would increase to 65 percent.
Substance abuse is highest for Indian people versus other ethnic
groups. Indian children suffer from mental illness at a rate of 20 to
25 percent.
These factors combined with other psycho-social stressors leave
urban Indians at a high risk for mental illness and impaired ability
to care for families and children. It is estimated that one out of
every 46 Indian children within Los Angeles is placed within the
custody of the juvenile dependency court. This figure does not in-
clude Indian children who have been put up for adoption out of the
home and other institutions.
In 1985 a study estimated an 85 percent ICWA noncompliance
rate within the State of California. It has been our experience that
compliance is elevated with careful monitoring of Governmental
services by Indian-run ICWA programs. In Los Angeles there cur-
rently is identified 206 Indian children within DCS -- DCS being the
Department of Children's Services -- 99 of whom are placed outside
of family homes. Since identification of Indian children is a severe
problem and past history indicates that the error rate might be as
high as 100 percent, it appears that 200 Indian children in place-
ment may be more of an accurate figure.
Providing the appropriate Federally mandated services is violat-
ed in many ways. Misidentification of Indian children is a very
severe problem. Criminal attorneys and county counsel have little
knowledge about ICWA, and they perceive this legislation to be a
tool of manipulation for the parents. Most of the attorneys are re-
luctant to do the work involved. In Los Angeles County there is
61
only one attorney who willingly works with ICWA cases. Private
attorneys are frequently ignorant of ICWA law or choose not to
follow it by instructing clients not to let the State social workers
know the Indian heritage of the child up for adoption.
Children's service workers are sometimes prejudiced and inten-
tionally violate ICWA. At a recent child abuse workshop three case
workers openly admitted that they would intentionally violate
ICWA because they believe it would be detrimental to the welfare
of the child.
ICWA training results in improved communication between Gov-
ernment workers and the local Indian community more appropri-
ate to the utilization of community services and in ICWA
compliance. Inadequate funding for legal services affects all aspects
of Indian child welfare. In Los Angeles there is no mental health
services available which have been designated to meet the unique
cultural needs of the Indian people. Even when Indian people do
utilize county services, they generally do not return, because serv-
ices are insensitive to their needs.
Today, the Bureau of Indian Affairs chooses to determine that
mental health psychological services are not fundable by their pro-
grams, even though such services are mandated in most cases by
the courts.
These services are what enable parents to raise their level of
functioning so that they can adequately care for their children. Not
only should all ICWA programs contain funds for psychotherapy
services, including psychological testing, but this must also be
spelled out as part of the definition of remedial, preventive, and re-
unification services.
Although there is no hard data, American Indian clinicians,
social workers, and psychologists agree that the most frequent psy-
chological diagnosis is major depression that evolves from a long
history of removal of Indian children from their homes. This re-
moval has disrupted the bonding process prerequisite for a healthy
development process.
The depression is frequently masked by substance abuse, is fre-
quently debilitating, and the parents are unable to get out of bed to
care for their children or necessary business. It is estimated in Los
Angeles about 80 percent of Indian parents whose children are re-
moved from the home wind up homeless. This makes unification
even more difficult.
Although the population of American Indians is only six-tenths
of a percent, 5.5 percent of the skid-row homeless are American In-
dians. Furthermore, over one-third of the Indian people served by
native American housing and emergency housing programs are
children, yet only three percent of these people achieve stable
housing.
These families are at high risk for having their children re-
moved. Urban ICWA programs must include case management and
mental health services for these high-risk people as well.
The unavailability of Indian foster and adoptive homes, particu-
larly in urban areas, contributes to the erosion of Indian culture
throughout the United States. The State of California has more In-
dians than any other State, yet only 11 counties are covered by
ICWA. Few directors of the Department of Mental Health have
62
ever heard of the Indian Child Welfare Act. ICWA must spell out
that urban Indian communities are entitled to funding for ICWA
programs.
To ignore 63 percent of the Indian population is to contribute to
the genocide of Indian people. The Indian Child Welfare Act is one
of the most significant pieces of pro-Indian legislation. However, it
accomplishes nothing if it is not backed by funding which accom-
plishes its goals.
Certainly, by providing extremely inadequate funding, as is now
the case, the Government perpetuates intertribal conflict and con-
flict between reservations and urban communities. If that is the
goal of Congress, then they are doing a good job.
In conclusion, we would like to recommend this: that ICWA fund-
ing be expanded to include urban programs, that each urban, rural,
and reservation community assess their ICWA needs, and receive
funding based on need.
ICWA programs should include money for: adequate legal repre-
sentation; adequate mental health; case management; psychological
services as part of preventive, remedial, and reunification services;
services for homeless Indian families as part of preventive services;
the development of adequate foster and adoption resources; and the
training programs for the dissemination of materials. Any Indian
child in Canada or the U.S. who is 25 percent or more Indian
should be eligible for Indian child welfare, regardless of enrollment
status. There should be no special group, no special interest group
to be exempt for ICWA restrictions. And finally, that the Title II of
the Indian Child Welfare Act be included as an entitlement pro-
gram under the Social Security Act.
Thank you very much for your kind attention. Home | Index