Service
Delivery for Native American Children in Los Angeles County, 1996
By
Duane Champagne, Ph.D.,
Carole Goldberg-Ambrose, J.D., Amber Machamer, Bethany Phillips, and Tessa Evans, MSW
Thanks for financial and
other assistance to the Drew Foundation for Children, the Interethnic Children’s
Council and to Southern California Indian Center, Inc. Special thanks to the research assistance
and help from the UCLA American Indian Studies Center.
The 1992 Los Angeles riots
developed a deep concern for the future and welfare of children of color within
the Los Angeles community. The
riots underscored the absence of sustained interest and attention by county
agencies and mainstream institutions for children of color. Most existing governmental and quasi-governmental
planning and development agencies had little direct contact or sustained attention
within minority neighborhoods and communities. Consequently, much effort and resources
were directed away from the needs and interests of minority children. Many in the minority community believed
that mainstream agencies needed to direct greater attention and deliver better
resources and services to minority children. Seldom do major county agencies make significant investments
in community building and training, provide technical assistance and access
to minority communities for active participation and development of initiatives
that will protect and develop the life chances, choices, and aspirations of
children of color.
The present project is part
of an initiative to study the institutional and community relations of African
American, Latino and American Indian children to the service agencies, organizations,
and resources available in Los Angeles County. Our task was to explore the service delivery
system for American Indian children in Los Angeles County. The study of urban Indian children’s
conditions consists of collection of secondary data, review of published material
and a survey of children services among county agencies, Indian organizations,
and with community people. We wanted to know how county and community organizations served
Indian children and what services were provided. We inquired about what kinds of programs
succeeded, and what improvements could be made over the present form of service
delivery. The survey was open-ended
and directed to major agencies and the Indian organizations and community
members who were actively engaged in service delivery for American Indian
children or engaged in Indian childrens’ issues. The group of agencies, organizations and
people involved in American Indian children’s service delivery proved
relatively small, with few agencies and advocates. Our search through the literature found very few works on the
conditions and service situation of urban Indian children.
The results of the research
bear out that American Indian children are not well served by county agencies.
Indian children tend to be invisible in the county children’s
service delivery system, and the county system does not serve the special
cultural, community and economic needs of Indian children.
There is little direct interaction with county agencies and Indian
service delivery organizations and the Indian community.
Our findings suggest that urban Indian children are difficult to identify,
and there are few programs or services available to fill current needs.
County agencies often refer questions of Indian services onto Indian
organizations and commissions which often are already overburdened and underfunded. County agencies, while well meaning, have little knowledge
or understanding of the diversity or character of the Indian population.
Indian service organizations
are underfunded, understaffed and have too many clients. Community advocates for Indian children
believe that major reorganization of county agencies and Indian service organizations
is necessary in order to effectively serve the needs and aspirations of Indian
children. Many Indian community
members favor more grassroots approaches that emphasize holistic or multidimensional
solutions to education and economic problems, substance abuse, cultural alienation,
community, spiritual and other issues that are confronting Native American
families, youth and children. The present-day bureaucratic emphasis
of county agencies does not provide a favorable forum for effective or long-term
solutions to the issues confronting the Indian families and children of Los
Angeles County. Service delivery
for the American Indian community requires sensitivity and respect for the
community, culture and needs of American Indian children. Most Indian advocates prefer that their
children are serviced within an Indian community context and with spiritual
and community guidance.
Most Indian families prefer
to seek services with Indian organizations, since the Indian client servers
are more culturally sensitive to their needs and aware of their life situations.
Indian families also prefer Indian organizations because they are places
for community gatherings, staging of powwows, places where more accurate knowledge
about Indians and the Indian community can be obtained.
Indian organizations, however, are underfunded, understaffed, have
too many clients to serve, have few or only fragmentary relations with other
Indian organizations and county agencies.
While service providers are often very committed and intelligent people,
the organization and culture of LA County services tends to inhibit effective
delivery to needy Indian children. Most
service programs and agencies focus on the delivery of crisis services.
Indian community members saw education programs as the path out of
poverty and dependency. Our findings suggest that greater cultural
sensitivity training, special attention to the education of Indian children,
more centralization of service delivery, more funding, more personnel, and
greater holistic emphasis on long-term culturally and community-based solutions
are needed. Thus the Indian advocates
suggest that more Indian people must be trained and strategically stationed
in county agencies to improve the delivery of services to Indian children
within the county delivery system. As many services as practical, however,
should be delivered through Indian organizations where community and cultural
relations can support service efforts with knowledge, understanding, and participation
in Indian community and culture. Some centralized organization or coalition of Indian-managed
service, cultural and community organization is seen as necessary for effective
delivery services to Indian children.
We recommend the formation of a centralized multi-service and community-cultural
center with appropriate satellite offices as a major step in the direction
of providing adequate services to the needy urban Indian children of LA County.
An alternative or enhanced education program for Indian children is
suggested to curb high rates of dropout and noncompletion of high school and
college.
The Urban
Indian Experience
There appears to be relatively
little research and information about the conditions of American Indians in
urban environments. There are
a few reports dating from the 1970s, based on hearings, which outline concerns
about Indian urban life. It is
generally understood that most Indians migrated to urban areas by means of
the Relocation Program started in the 1950s as part of the government program
to terminate Indian reservations and move Indian labor from rural areas to
where the jobs were in urban areas.[1] There was a wave of urban Indian
migrants during the 1920s and again in the post-World War II period. In 1920 there were already 27,000 urban
Indians or about 8.1% of the Indian population.[2] Between 1952 and 1970 about 100,000
Indians were relocated to urban areas by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
By the middle 1970s, as many as 160,000 Indian relocatees and dependents
may have participated in BIA assistance for migration to urban areas.[3] In 1970, however, there were over
300,000 Indians in urban areas, and BIA relocatees had a 50% return rate in
the 1952 to 1968 period.[4] The BIA Relocation Program contributed
to urban migration but was not the only important factor.[5] The push of poverty on the reservation
and the pull of opportunity in the urban areas attracted a considerable number
of Native Americans.
Urban Indians appear to
have higher incomes and lower poverty rates than reservation or rural Indians.
In 1969, the urban Indian poverty rate for families was 20%, while
the reservation family poverty rate was twice as high at 40%.
In the 1970 census, 38% of urban Indian individuals were living below
the poverty line, while 54% of reservation Indians were classified in poverty.[6] Nevertheless, the urban experience
does involve tradeoffs and costs to migrants. Land, housing and the cost of living are
often cheap on reservations, and access to federal, BIA, and Indian Health
Service (IHS) programs provides further support. Furthermore, family networks and exchanges provide a safety
net for many reservation residents.
While jobs and economic opportunity are often in short supply on many
reservations, the transition to the urban environment is usually fraught with
new problems and issues. The
cost of living, the loss of friends and family networks, and the loss of access
to BIA and IHS services often reduce new Indian migrants to less secure circumstances.
Services are harder to get in urban areas and Indians are reluctant
to use them. Many Indians work in the city, but return
to the reservation for services such as serious medical problems.[7] Indian migrants with fewer job skills
will have greater difficulty compensating or equaling the quality of life
on the reservation. Most Indian
migrants are unskilled and often return to the reservation. Research indicates that migrants who were
supported by BIA relocation funds did only slightly better economically than
rural reservation Indians who stayed home. Those Indians who migrated to an urban area without financial
assistance from the BIA often did worse economically than those who remained
on their reservation.[8] Increasingly, however, there is a larger
Indian middle class in urban areas who have become economically stable, but
are relatively invisible. In
1968, about 10% of the Chicago Indian community was in the middle class, but
about 70% were day laborers.[9]
By 1980, 719,000 Indians
lived in urban areas, about 52.7% of the total Indian population.[10] In 1979 the median income for Native American
living on the reservation was $9,920 and about 45% of the reservation population
lived below the poverty line.[11] The 1980s saw the dismemberment of many
anti-poverty programs and throughout the nation, many urban Indians community
and multi-service centers were dismantled. Three urban centers were closed in Los Angeles alone.[12] Many urban centers depended on Administration
for Native American (ANA) or job programs. When funding declined for these major
programs, many urban Indian centers across the country closed or had to down
size. This trend toward less
direct funding available to urban Indians continues in the middle 1990s. Socio-economic conditions for many urban
Indians continued to decline or remain poor. Health conditions of urban Indians are worse than for reservation
Indians in several categories. In 1985, when compared to reservation Indians, urban Indians
rates of alcoholism, tuberculosis, diabetes mellitus, unintentional injuries,
and homicide were significantly higher, when controlling for age-adjusted
mortality rates.[13] Over 40% of urban Indians suffer from
moderate to high cholesterol and 39% of urban Indian men had blood pressure
in the moderate to high range.[14]
Urban American Indian children
graduated at lower rates from high school, in part because Indian children
had different values from those
found in most American schools. More
training and sensitization of school staff were encouraged.[15] Overall nearly 75 % of Indian college
students did not graduate from college, although about 30% succeeded very
well in primary and high school.[16]
During the 1980s, suicide
rates among Indian children of school age were three times higher than suicide
rates among non-Indian youth.[17] In 1985, 50% of urban Indian youth and
80% of reservation Indian youth were at least moderately involved with alcohol,
while in comparison only 23% of urban non-Indian youth moderately used alcohol.
Indian populations suffered from use of marijuana, inhalants and other
illicit drugs.[18] Substance abuse contributed to educational
setbacks for Indian youth, were associated with criminal acts for adults and
contributed to economic marginalization.[19] Indians were arrested while under the
influence of drugs or alcohol at rates four times higher than blacks and ten
times higher than whites.[20] Between 1975 and 1987, the prevalence
of substance abuse among American Indian school age children increased. A 1986-87 sample of Native American high
school seniors reported that over the previous month 58.5% used alcohol, 35.5%
used marijuana, 1.8% used inhalants, 3.7% used cocaine, 9.1% used stimulants,
38.3% used cigarettes, and 31.4% used smokeless tobacco.[21] Indian children are exposed to various
substances early in their lives. In
one sample, by the 7th grade 28% of the sampled Indian children had been drunk
at least once, 44% had smoked marijuana, 22% tried inhalants, 12 % tried stimulants,
and 72% had smoked cigarettes.[22] In one sample, Indian children as
early as the 4th and 5th grades with an average age of 10 indicated over their
lifetimes that 33.5% experienced cigarettes, 36.6% tried smokeless tobacco,
43.6% tried alcohol, 6.6 % tried inhalants, 10.2 tried marijuana and 2.6%
tried cocaine or crack. Researchers
report that in the same sample of young people with average age of 10 in the
week before the research survey that 11.6% used cigarettes, 25.5 % chewed
smokeless tobacco, 6.8 % drank alcohol, 3.5 % sniffed inhalants, 3.8% smoked
marijuana, and 1.6 % used cocaine or crack.[23] American Indian children use drugs
and alcohol at earlier ages, engage in heavier use, and suffer dramatic economic,
health and educational effects more than other major ethnic groups.[24]
Health data on the urban
Indian population is scanty. Research
on various samples of Indian urban populations suggests that urban Indian
health clientele have annual incomes far below the national average and below
the average for all urban Indians. Many Urban Indian health clinic clientele did not carry health
insurance and had low levels of education. They used primary care facilities less often than the non-Indian
population, but about as much as Indians in rural Oklahoma and Kansas.
Many urban Indians have difficulty obtaining primary health care because
they can not afford to pay, and do not have health insurance, and because
Indian Health Service facilities are often not available in many urban areas. Urban Indians suffered from high levels of diabetes mellitus
and hypertension among middle-aged groups, while young women were in need
of prenatal care and contraception.[25] Other reports also suggest that many urban
Indians have low incomes and about half did not have health insurance.
Indian women were less likely to obtain prenatal care than black or
white women, and suffered more unwanted pregnancies than white women, but
fewer than black women. Economic, social and behavioral risk factors
combine to put urban American Indian women at high risk for complications
while pregnant and during the delivery of children.[26] Despite considerable improvement over
the past three decades, infant mortality among American Indians remains higher
than the non-Indian population.[27]
Indian children may be underserved
in the mental health area. Although
in the early 1980s, 45% of the Indian population was under 15, less than 15%
of the mental health contacts with the IHS were with children.[28]
About two-thirds (66%) of
self-identified Indians in the 1990 census were living in urban areas. California is the second largest state
in Indian population, with 242,000, a 19% increase over the 1980 census. Nevertheless, leaders in the urban Indian
community argue that the 1990 census represents a serious undercount of at
least 10-15%, which impairs the urban Indian community from competing with
other ethnic groups for community block grants or other funding. The majority of Indians in California
have their tribal origins in some other state of the union. More than 100 tribes are represented in
Los Angeles alone.[29]
Many urban Indian communities
are unable to participate in federal, state, county or local programs because
the Indian population is such a small percentage. In the top 50 major metropolitan areas,
American Indians represent about .5% of the population. Thus Indians are not usually well known
or predominant in any urban contexts.
For example, since Indians are such a small urban population, large
urban school districts refuse to allow Indian magnet schools.[30]
Although most Indians currently
reside in urban areas, only about 5% of Indian Health Service funds support
the urban Indian population.[31] The proportion of support of BIA funds for urban Indians
is probably smaller than the IHS budget.
Over the 1983-1993 period, federal support for urban Indian programs
declined 50% despite the increase in urban Indian population. In 1990, about 1.3 million Indians lived
in urban areas and many do not benefit from government programs that serve
Indians living on or near a reservation.[32]
The IHS, an agency of the
U.S. Public Health Service, has responsibility for supplying health care to
members of federally recognized tribes.
In 1990 the IHS had 127 service centers on or near reservations. Unfortunately, IHS service assignments
were made in 1955 when more Indians were living on reservations. There are only 28 urban clinics run by
the IHS providing medical services to urban Indians. The services offered are not comprehensive and vary widely.
If the services do not exist at a close-by urban clinic the only option
is an IHS reservation health unit which
may be hundreds of miles away.”[33] Most urban Indians are not provided convenient
medical services from the IHS. In
some cities, the IHS provides primary care through contracting (P. L. 93-638)
with local health care agencies. While
some of the contracting health care agencies are Indian owned and operated,
historically, urban Indians have been reluctant to attend non-Indian health
facilities, in part because of previous bad experiences and discrimination.[34]
Health concerns remain high
among urban Indians. Ten percent
of urban Indians report having diabetes and 40% have high cholesterol and
blood pressure. Urban Indians
have age-adjusted mortality rates for alcoholism, diabetes mellitus, unintentional
injuries, and homicide that are considerably higher than those for reservation
Indians. The number of urban
Indian mental patients increased 200% from 1988-1990.[35] HIV related care is very limited, as well
as other special medical treatments which are not easily provided by the IHS.[36]
The Urban
Indian Community in LA County
According to the 1990 census,
Los Angeles had the largest urban Indian population in the nation with 43,899
people, a 7.1% decrease of 3,335 from the 1980 census count for LA Indians.
Some members of the Indian community dispute the census figures and
recommend that a more accurate number may be 10 to 19% higher than the official
census count. There were over 100 tribes represented
in Los Angeles according to the 1990 census, including Navajo, Hopi, Cherokee,
Chippewa, Apache, various California Indians, many Oklahoma Indians from many
tribes, as well as others. Consequently,
the contemporary American Indian community is very culturally diverse.
Most of the Indian residents of Los Angeles County were from non-California
tribes. Nevertheless, the original Indians of
the Los Angeles basin continue to live in Los Angeles. The Gabrielino/Tongva and the Fernandeño
live in scattered small communities within Los Angeles County.
Most Indian immigrants to Los Angeles appear to have come over the
past 50 years. During World War II, many Indians served
in the armed forces and many others migrated to Los Angeles to work in national
defense plants. At least 30,000
American Indians were resettled in Los Angeles during the BIA’s Relocation
Program.[37] During the 1960s and 1970s, the Los Angeles
Indian population grew steadily.
On many socio-economic indicators,
such as homeownership, education, income, poverty rates, employment and others,
the Los Angeles American Indian population lags behind county averages.
A survey of 380 Indian community members by Eagle Lodge found that
poverty issues were of greatest concern, while drug and alcohol abuse were
relatively secondary considerations.
Money (282 respondents), jobs (231), housing (142), physical health
(123), transportation (121), food (108) and adult drinking (106) were the
7 most frequently mentioned concerns and were mentioned by at least 100 respondents.[38] A complex of poverty-related issues seemed
to concern Eagle Lodge clients most.
According to the 1990 census
figures, 31% of American Indian preschoolers lived in poverty, while in general
22% of county preschool children lived in poverty. For children between ages 5 and 17, American
Indian poverty rates of 21-23% compared only slightly worse than LA County
poverty rates of 21-23% for children in the same age group. Very young Indian children from the ages
of 0-4 are suffering high rates of poverty in Los Angeles County.[39] The average poverty threshold for a family
of four in 1989 was $12,674. Nationally
American Indian children lived in poverty at the high rate of 37.6%.
For urban Indian children living in metropolitan areas greater than
500,000 people, the poverty rate was 31.6%.[40] LA Indian children were better off than
Indian children in general, although urban Indian families are confronted
with higher costs of living and fewer federal services than are available
to reservation Indians.
The very young Indian children
in poverty may be due to a higher than average rate of children in single
parent households. 48.6% of American
Indian children are not living with both parents, while the county-wide figure
is 35%. Indian families with
female heads of households accounted for 19% of Indian families, while female
head of household families accounted for 12% of the county families.[41] American Indians have fewer families with
married parents, at 41%, while the county average was 49%. In a sample of census data comparing LA
Indians to Indians in the top 50 metropolitan areas, 36.6% of LA Indian children
lived in single parent households while 45.5% of other urban Indian children
lived in families without two parents.[42] The relative frequency of female
and single family households, combined with generally less income, may be
contributing to the prevalence of poverty among young American Indian children. More LA Indian children are living in
single parent families than the average in LA County, but fewer LA Indian
children live in single parent households than other urban Indian children
from major metropolitan areas.
Overall the Indian poverty
rate for individuals was 17.1% while the county poverty rate was 15.1%.
By 1992, because of the recent economic recession, the county poverty
rate grew to 17.2%.[43] Although there are no comparable 1992
poverty figures of the LA American Indian community, it is likely that the
poverty rate for Indians in LA County also grew to a figure higher than 17.2%.
The poverty rate for rural California Indians was 34.1% and the national
American Indian poverty rate was 30.9 %, and so LA Indians are doing better,
when not counting urban cost of living and access to federal services.
The average household income
in the LA Indian community in 1989 was $37,071, while the county average household
income was $47,252. Among American
Indian households, 41% earn less than $25,000, while 35% of county households
earn less than $25,000.[44] In comparison with Indians in other major
metropolitan areas, LA Indians have a significantly higher mean household
income ($41,800) than other urban Indians ($34,599).[45] In general LA Indians were doing worse
than the county income averages, and worse than whites, blacks, and Asians,
but somewhat better than Hispanics.[46] LA Indians, however, are doing better
in household income than other urban Indians, although the cost of living
in LA may be higher than in many of the other cities.
Thirty-seven percent (37%)
of American Indians in LA County owned their homes, while the rate of homeownership
within the county was 48%. Consequently,
63% of the American Indian population were renting, while 52% of county residents
rented their living quarters. About three quarters of American Indians rented apartments
at $500 or above. American Indians
rent more often and own their own homes less often than the general population
in LA County.[47] In household characteristics, LA Indians
had more phones, 92.8 % to 81.8%, more complete kitchens, 97.1% to 94.3%,
and more complete plumbing, 98.2% to 86.0% than Indians from other major metropolitan
areas. Nevertheless, more LA
Indian households did not have a car, 14% to 9.6 %, than other urban Indians.[48] LA Indians have better housing conditions
than other major metropolitan Indians, but have fewer cars. The lack of a car in Los Angeles is a
major obstacle to any household and reflects the often-repeated need for transportation
within the LA Indian community.
The unemployment rate for
Indians 16 or over was 10.2% in the 1990 census, while the county-wide unemployment
rate was 7.4, and the unemployment rate for whites was 4.8% Since the recession starting in 1989-90,
the unemployment rate in Los Angeles County has risen dramatically.
It was 9.7% in 1993, and is closer to 7.5% in recent months.
There are no comparable unemployment rates of LA Indians over the past
6 years, but most likely the LA Indian unemployment rate rose significantly
higher than the 10.2% gathered by the census in 1989.
The mean non-farm self-employment
income for LA Indians was $16,847, which is below all other ethnic groups
in Los Angeles County. Whites
had $31,727 in average non-farm self employment income, while blacks had $20,331,
Asians $28,860 and Hispanics $18,013.[49] Although there are many small “mom
and pop” type businesses owned and operated by American Indians in Los
Angeles, Indians are far behind other ethnic groups and the county average
in generating business income. In recent years, more interest has been generated by Indian
business people, as evidenced by the organization of a Los Angeles American
Indian Chamber of Commerce, and long-time efforts of The National Center for
American Indian Enterprise Development.
Nevertheless, American Indians are less engaged in capitalist enterprise
than other groups, and more information should be given to young people about
how business ownership and a career can be made compatible with Indian values
and lifestyle.
The LA American Indian community
reports relatively lower educational achievement than any other major ethnic
groups in Los Angeles County, except Hispanics. For persons 16-19, 21.2 % of American
Indian youth were not enrolled in school and were not high school graduates.
Only 5.2% of Asians, 7.5% of whites, and 12.9% of blacks were not enrolled
in school and had not completed high school.
Only Hispanics had a higher rate, at 26.7%, of not completing high
school.[50] American Indian high school retention
rates may be worsening.[51] In a comparison of urban Indian communities,
LA Indian youths ages 16-19 who were not enrolled in school and not high school
graduates averaged 25.6%, while non-LA urban Indian youth averaged 11.5%.[52] LA Indian children are dropping
out of school at over twice the rate of Indian children in other urban areas.
American Indians in LA County also drop out of college (26%) at higher
rates than the county average (20%).
LA Indians, however, complete college at higher rates than other urban
Indians. For ages 18-24, 5.6% of LA Indians have
a bachelor’s degree, while 2.7% of other urban Indians finished college.
In the 25 years and older group, 9.3% of LA Indians have a college
degree, while 7.9% of other urban Indians had a degree.[53] Education is one of the primary
concerns of the Indian community, and many American Indian children are not
doing well in public schools. More
attention needs to be directed to high school and college retention of Indian
youth. LA Indian youth are not
doing well in school when compared to county averages. They compare well in completing college
with other urban Indians, but are worse in finishing high school.
Information on the health
of the Native American population in Los Angeles County is very incomplete.
The LA County Department of Mental Health reported that for the fiscal
year 1992-93, the county facility served 417 Indian clients.
Most Indian youth were treated for adjustment and personality issues
(77%). Major depression was a far lower second
concern with 17% (1992) and 15.5% (1993).
Among adults major depression was the most frequent treatment for both
older adults, 41.2% in 1992 and 54.5% in 1993, and adults, 36.3% in 1992 and
37.3% in 1993. Adults were often
treated for schizophrenia, 21.6% in 1992 and 21.5 % in 1993, and bipolar and
other psychoses with 20.9% in 1992 and 23.8% in 1993. Major depression seems to be a significant problem among the
adult mentally impaired members of the Indian LA community, while youth are
most often treated for adjustment and personality problems, with depression
a secondary issue. The frequency
of depression among the Indian community members seeking help far exceeds
the depression frequencies of other ethnic groups. In 1993, among the other ethnic groups who sought county help
depression was diagnosed for adult Hispanics at 24.8 %, whites 20.8%, African-Americans
20.7%, Asians, 28.2. Among Indian
youth, the personality adjustment diagnosis was given at a lower rate than
Hispanic, white, African-American, and Asian youth, but Indian youth were
diagnosed for major depression at higher rates than other ethnic youth who
sought help at county facilities.[54] Major depression should be a significant
concern within the American Indian community. Depression may lead to or be associated
with other types of dysfunctional actions such as drinking, drug abuse, loss
of work, violence and perhaps other issues.
The Eagle Lodge survey indicates
that in their sample the leading psychological concerns were Feeling Good
About Oneself (91 respondents), Use of Alcohol in the Family (77), Worries
About Money (68), Angry and Bitter (67), Anxious (58), Fear of Neighborhood
Violence (57), and Use of Drugs in the Family (57). Self perception topped the list while substance abuse was a
significant concern.[55]
Los Angles appears similar
to other urban Indian communities in that most Indian people who seek services
are poor and relatively recent migrants to the city. The survey conducted by Eagle Lodge found
that 42.4% of their sample of 380 did not have any type of insurance.
Only 19% of the Eagle Lodge respondents had private medical insurance,
while 38% had no medical insurance, 8% had IHS coverage and 17% had Medicare,
Medicaid or VA coverage.[56] The primary reasons for not having medical
insurance were that the individuals were unemployed or they could not afford
health insurance. Some agencies
and Indian organization providers believe that 60-80% of their caseloads are
recent arrivals who are battling with drug and alcohol abuse problems.
Nevertheless, substance abuse facilities and Indian organization providers
are severely underfunded and compete with non-Indian agencies for funding
and grants. Many Indian clients are confronted with
dual diagnosis situations: They
are suffering from both mental illness, usually major depression, and substance
abuse. Present programs, however,
are not equipped to manage more than one issue at a time.
County mental health funding requires that substance abuse issues must
be addressed before beginning mental health treatment.
The requirement of detoxification or primary treatment before beginning
mental health treatment greatly limits the possibilities of comprehensive
treatment for those who are suffering multiple pathologies.
HIV/AID is an increasing health danger to urban men and women, especially
among the homeless, but no services are set aside to address the social and
health problems at any Indian agency or organization.[57]
Like urban Indians in many
large cities, many LA Indians cannot find good health care. Many do not have insurance, do not have
the means to pay for health care, and cannot manage county health care facilities.
Local Indian health care facilities are not comprehensive.
Those urban Indians form recognized tribes can return to their reservations
for serious care. Nevertheless,
even returning to their home reservations for health care requires money,
time off from work, and transportation.
Consequently many LA Indians wait until they are severely ill before
returning to their home reservations or IHS health care units.[58]
The Department of Children
and Family Services reported placement of 332 Indian children during 1995.
Indian children were placed within Indian homes in 61% of the cases,
while 39% were placed in non-Indian situations, which included non-Indian
legal guardians, state non-Indian foster homes, non-Indian foster father adoptions,
non-Indian fathers, group homes, adoption, or non-Indian relatives.
A relatively high rate of non-Indian placements suggests that Indian
Child Welfare Act (ICWA) protections are not entirely able to ensure that
Indian children are placed in Indian homes.
Urban Indian children are less likely to be placed in Indian homes
than reservation children. There
appears to be an insufficient number of Indian foster homes in Los Angeles. In 1990, Los Angeles had 250 Indian foster
children and only 12 Indian foster homes.[59] ICWA services need to be considerably
expanded to ensure proper disposition of Indian child adoption cases.
Experienced care givers
in the LA Indian community emphasize that services should be delivered from
a culturally informed perspective and be combined with experience and knowledge
about community needs.[60] Most Indian clients continue to maintain
lifestyles that emphasize Indian values and community. Indian community members strongly emphasize
the importance of children, family and community as well as respect for oneself,
for others, and the earth; honesty; trust; generosity; sharing; modesty; discipline;
sincerity; and polite, kind, courteous behavior. These values characterize the value orientations
of many members within the LA Indian community. The ability to practice Indian community
values is mediated by the urban environment, substance abuse, acculturation,
relations with the home reservation, and opportunity to engage in social and
cultural activities with other Indians. Children and children’s health are highly valued. Chronic illness for children occurs when
conditions emerge that erode a child’s relations with parents, family
and tribe, impair a healthy sense of identity and well-being, or interfere
with balanced development as a result of poverty or substance abuse.
Children’s health is interrelated with family health and can
not be separated. Service providers for the Indian community
suggest that poverty, geographic distances to services and other Indians,
erosion of native rights, the absence of a culturally sensitive service delivery
network and the relative invisibility of the Indian community are the main
reasons that cultural integrity and health are threatened among urban Indian
children and families.[61]
Urban
Indian Needs Assessment:
With Application to the
Indian Children of LA County
Over the past 20 years numerous
hearings and assessments have been made about the conditions and needs of
urban American Indians. During
the 1990s, several assessments were made about the urban Indian community
in LA County. Many of the reports
are very good and outline the issues confronting urban Indians, although most
of the reports have gone relatively unheeded during the 1980s and 1990s, a
period of government contraction and deemphasis on social programs. Many of the studies and needs assessments
address issues that still confront urban Indian communities. This section summarizes the literature
on urban Indian conditions, with special attention to the needs of Indian
children and youth in LA County, and draws upon the recommendations suggested
in the various reports and studies.
Eligibility
for Services of Urban Indians in L.A. County[62]
In
1976, the Task Force on Urban and Rural Non–reservation Indians of the
American Indian Policy Review Commission [AIPRC Task Force] wrote in its final
report to Congress:
In reviewing the history
of the general problem of services to off–reservations Indians, it has
been evident at least since the urban hearings of 1928 that the prevailing
policy has been to deny services;...[T]he limited assistance, essentially
designed to encourage Indians to leave their homelands, [has] done little,
if anything, to alleviate Indian needs....The migration has not brought even
moderate economic well–being to the majority of migrated Indians....
...[U]rban Indians do not
avail themselves of non–Indian programs and ... have tended to remain
an invisible minority, holding less power and receiving less in the way of
assistance than their numbers would warrant. In spite of the mistaken belief that urban Indians are an assimilated,
undistinguishable group, many of them have retained their tribal identity
and the need for programs that are specifically designed for Indians.[63]
The
past twenty years have witnessed modest changes in federal policies and legislation
regarding urban Indians, resulting in a small number of additional services
to such individuals. Nonetheless,
the statements quoted above remain essentially accurate.
Whether the federal government's trust responsibility to Indian tribes
encompasses urban Indians was debated in the AIPRC Task Force Report, and
continues to arouse controversy today.
Over the past five years, this debate has been augmented by concern
among federal officials that benefits for urban Indians violate federal constitutional
norms of equality on the basis of race and ethnicity.[64] The upshot is that increased services
for urban Indians are unlikely in the future.
Denial
of services to urban Indians is more often a function of agency policies than
congressional mandate. By far
the largest source of funds for services to Indians is the Bureau of Indian
Affairs within the Department of Interior.[65] The broadest source of authority to dispense
such services is the Snyder Act, enacted in 1921.[66] General assistance, child welfare services,
employment assistance, and higher education scholarships, among other benefits,
are funded by appropriations to Interior made under the authorization of this
statute. Although the Snyder
Act defines the class of eligible beneficiaries as "Indians throughout
the United States," the Bureau has generally limited the class to Indians
living "on or near reservations."[67] In some instances, as with higher education
scholarships, the Bureau has established priorities, such that urban Indians
may be awarded benefits only after Indians living on or near reservations
have been served.[68]
The
Supreme Court has never interpreted the Act to require such a narrower
class of beneficiaries that excludes or limits eligibility for urban Indians;
it has, however, affirmed the Bureau's power to designate a group that is
less inclusive than the statute to receive benefits if the designation is
made in accordance with proper procedures.[69] At the same time, some limits on the Bureau's
power are suggested by a recent opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit in a case involving higher education grants. There, the court stated that in formulating
eligibility standards for programs funded under the Snyder Act, the BIA "must
adopt criteria consistent with the broad language of the [statute]."[70] This court also encouraged the Bureau
to "look to eligibility criteria used in other Snyder Act programs...for
guidance when promulgating the standard for grant programs."
If
the Bureau follows the Ninth Circuit's advice and turns to other Snyder Act
programs for guidance, it will find only limited authority to include urban
Indians in California. The particular
program cited by the court was the Indian Health Service [IHS] health benefits
for Indians, eligibility for which is defined by the 1988 and 1992 the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act [IHCIA]. The Snyder Act serves as the basis for appropriations for this
program, which is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services
rather than the Department of Interior. As a general matter, eligibility for IHS services is limited
to members of federally recognized tribes who live in designated "Health
Service Delivery Areas" [HSDA's].[71] According to federal regulations,
HSDA's normally consist of reservations and surrounding areas.[72]
Both
the requirement of membership in a federally recognized tribe and the geographic
limits of HSDA's can operate to bar urban Indians in California from health
care services. The former requirement
is relaxed, however, for some members of non–recognized California tribes.
According to the 1988 amendments to the IHCIA, the class of "California
Indians" eligible for IHS services includes holders of trust allotments
and distributees under the California Indian land settlement process and their
descendants, regardless of their membership in a federally recognized tribe.[73] While this definition encompasses some
urban Indians (i.e., some of those from unrecognized California tribes), it
obviously excludes the large number of urban Indians in California who relocated
from tribes outside the state. Furthermore,
the requirement of residence in an HSDA excludes all urban Indians
in California except for those in San Diego County.[74]
To
compensate partially for the exclusion of urban Indians from general IHS benefits,
federal law provides that the IHS may fund urban Indian organizations to provide
referral services, promote community health, and "where necessary, provide...health
care services."[75] Approximately 35 such urban Indian health
programs exist around the country, including one in Los Angeles County.
These programs provide no more than primary care, however, compared
with the more comprehensive care offered in HSDA's; and these urban programs
are funded at only 1% of the total IHS budget, even though over 63% of American
Indians and Alaskan Natives live in off–reservation areas, largely in
cities. [76] Thus, even if the B.I.A. were to use the
IHS as its model, it would not be providing adequate services to urban Indians.
Given
the B.I.A.'s present inclinations in interpreting the Snyder Act, few of the
benefits available under that statute, including child welfare services, ever
find their way to Indians in Los Angeles County. The limitation of benefits to Indians who live "on or
near" reservations is preclusive.
Indeed, most benefits that come to tribes in L.A. County are funneled
through agencies other than the Department of Interior. For example, the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) houses the Administration for Native Americans (ANA),
which supports Indian organizations in urban as well as reservation areas,
promoting social and economic self–sufficiency for Native Americans.[77] Although funding for ANA has diminished
substantially over the past several years, small amounts have been allocated
recently to the Southern California Indian Center, located in Orange County,
to support an Indian law clinic.
HHS also sponsors child welfare services under the Social Security
Act,[78] which may be provided through
Indian tribal organizations that have established appropriate plans for such
services. There is no federal
requirement that the Indian families served by such programs reside on reservations,
although the tribes may define their own priorities.[79]
Another
example of an agency that funds services for urban Indians is the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which assists in financing the development
or acquisition costs of low–income housing for families who are members
of any federally recognized tribe.[80] In St. Paul Intertribal Housing Board
v. Reynolds,[81] a federal District Court in Minnesota
held that the statute authorizing these services made no distinction between
urban and reservation Indians, and that the federal trust responsibility extended
to both groups. Accordingly,
where appropriate urban Indian housing authorities exist, HUD must consider
them eligible for funds along with reservation–based organizations.
A
third illustration of a non–Interior agency that supports services to
urban Indians is the Department of Education, which administers several programs
authorized by the Indian Education Act (Title IX). Title IX, whose purpose is to meet the
special educational and culturally related academic needs of Indian students,
includes a formula grant program directed at local school districts; a grant
program for state, tribal, and Indian–controlled entities to improve
educational opportunities for Indian children; a fellowship program for Indian
students to study in graduate and professional programs in specified fields;
and a grant program for the development of educational opportunities for adult
Indians. By far the largest of
these Title IX programs, the formula grant program, is based on the number
of Indian students that a local school district can identify through certification
forms filled out by their parents. In
1995, Title IX formula grant funds served over 33,000 students in California,
including those who are members of recognized tribes, descendants in the first
or second degree of such members, members of tribes terminated since 1940,
and members of state–recognized tribes.[82] Urban as well as reservation–based
Indians are included, and no distinction is made between members of tribes
indigenous to the state and other tribal members.
The enrichment program for Indian–controlled schools ordinarily
requires that Indian children who are served live "on or near" a
reservation. But in 1988, Congress amended the Indian
Education Act to exempt schools serving Indian children in California, Oklahoma,
and Alaska from that geographic constraint.[83]
What
these three examples demonstrate is that agencies other than the Bureau of
Indian Affairs are far more disposed to serve urban Indians than the Bureau
itself.[84] Even in those rare circumstances where
statutory law and the Bureau's own regulations allow grants to programs for
urban Indians, such programs offer fewer services and are less well–funded
than comparable programs for reservation Indians. For example, under Title II of the Indian
Child Welfare Act (ICWA), federal grants are available both for "on or
near reservation" programs[85] for Indian child and family
services and for "off–reservation" programs.[86] But funding for the "on or near"
programs has greatly overshadowed the funding for urban programs.
Despite the large size of Los Angeles's urban Indian population, the
only ICWA support is through a grant run by the Southern California Indian
Center headquartered in Orange County.
When
urban Indians are excluded from special federal Indian programs, general federal,
state, and local services rarely function as adequate substitutes. Because Indian communities rarely
constitute more than 1% of large metropolitan areas,[87] the distinctive cultures
and needs of members of those communities are often overlooked. Professors Gloria Valencia–Weber
and Christine Zuni emphasize this point in a recent article on domestic violence
against American Indian women.[88] In a discussion of the special problems
of urban Indian women,[89] they describe how shelters
in urban areas are frequently unaware of the cultural resources which should
be used to assist Indian victims of domestic violence. To illustrate the need for urban
shelters offering services tailored to the needs of Indian women, they depict
the activities of the highly successful Eagle's Nest in St. Paul, Minnesota,
which was established by an advocacy group for battered American Indian women.
This shelter uses traditional teachings, resources, and practices to
overcome the damage resulting from abuse, including burning sage and cedar
to calm the spirit, teaching traditional crafts and survival skills, and participation
in spiritual ways. Without such programs directed specifically at the Indian
community, there is a genuine risk that services will remain unused by Indian
people or that services will be ineffectual.
The
question posed by recent federal administrations is whether such specially
designed programs for American Indians violate the equal protection guarantees
of the Fifth Amendment (in the case of federal programs) and the Fourteenth
Amendment (in the case of state programs)
of the United States Constitution.
In particular, there is legal concern that benefits for urban Indians
(as opposed to tribes) represent prohibited discrimination on the basis of
race or ethnicity. A full analysis
of this question is beyond the scope of this report. However, it is fair to say that federal programs for urban
Indians are more likely to pass constitutional muster than state programs;
and federal programs for urban Indians have a greater chance of surviving
constitutional scrutiny if they are directed at individuals who belong to
tribal communities and if they are administered in pursuit of a well–articulated
trust responsibility. For example, child welfare services aimed at urban Indians
who are tribal members or eligible for tribal membership seem secure against
constitutional challenge, because they fulfill the federal trust responsibility
to protect tribal communities against population loss.
Education
In general, American Indian
education statistics are dismal. American
Indian students drop out of high school at alarming rates, and those that
continue on to college also show low rates of graduation. LA Indian children are doing much worse
than the county average for graduating from high school and significantly
worse than Indian youth in other large cities.
Significant attention needs to be given to why LA Indian children are
not finishing high school.
In our own survey, respondents
stated that education was the main long-term solution to the socio-economic
conditions confronting urban LA Indians. A primary issue among urban parents is
control over the education process of their children. As far back as the early reservation days, Indian parents have
had little participation or control over the American-style education of their
children. Children were often
shipped away to boarding schools, and when day schools became more acceptable,
BIA officials and teachers managed the schools with little guidance or participation
from Indian parents. Since the
middle 1970s, many reservation communities have increasingly gained control
over school administrations primarily through PL93-638 contracts.
In urban areas, however, Indian parents and students have little access
to or influence on school policy or curriculum.
Indian parents seldom find themselves in a position to influence the
education of their children in city-wide or county-wide school boards. Nor are Indian parents often able to convince
school administrators to introduce curricula with more culturally respectful
and balanced understandings about American Indians and their cultures.
The small numbers of American Indian students within urban settings
make them relatively invisible to the process of school administration in
large city and county school systems.[90]
Obtaining funding for urban
education programs has been increasingly difficult since the early 1980s.
Application processes require considerable expertise, urban Indian
parents are forced into competition with reservation communities for limited
funding, and urban education systems are relatively unresponsive to the needs
of Indian children.[91]
Some cities, like Minneapolis
and Chicago, have tried alternative or magnet schools for Indian children,
primarily because the Indian parents saw their children doing very poorly
in the public schools. The Chicago
Indian high school is reported as ineffectual,[92] although the Minneapolis Indian alternative
schools have a better record. The
alternative schools are a way to bring education to Indian children who were
socially and culturally mismatching with the American school system and culture.
Many urban Indian parents express dismay over discrimination and harassment
experienced by their children in public schools.
The children often believe that their school instructors are insensitive,
poorly informed about Indian history and culture, and uninterested in such
topics.[93] Many Native American families emphasize
sharing and extended family relations,while American schools emphasize individuality
in the classroom. Cooperative,
rather than competitive behavior is seen as weakness or poor performance by
teachers.[94] Teachers need to be more engaged with
Indian families and parents. Indian
parents need more involvement in the education process. Furthermore, school books and curriculum
unfavorably portray Native American images. Although in recent years efforts have
been made to improve and diversify the images portrayed in textbooks, the
current material is far from presenting a Native perspective or a Native voice.
A voluntary alternative
or magnet school arrangement might be considered for LA Indian children, especially
for those at high risk, although the dispersion of the Indian population throughout
the county might migrate against such a project. If alternative programs are not possible,
more emphasis should be given to community-based education or community participant
education. Indian teacher aides
and parent volunteers may make Indian children more comfortable at school.
Peer-tutoring should be made available and values such as sharing,
cooperation, and group success should be emphasized in the classroom. Teachers, however, must be taught to respect
Indian families and cultures, and excuse absences for religious or ceremonial
participation.[95] More Indian parents want to see greater
cultural awareness of Indian history and culture within the school environments
within which their children must study.
These may include introduction of courses about Indian history and
culture.[96] More Indian teachers, counselors,
and administrators in public schools would help Indian children feel more
comfortable and also gain recognition and appreciation of their cultural differences. Indian children are in great need of college
preparation counseling, and high school retention counseling.
In order to assist in the
education of LA Indian children and youth, local education institutions, colleges
and universities should help ensure the availability of counseling and economic
assistance to needy and deserving Indian students. Institutions of higher education should
further develop courses of study related to Native American cultural and history,
and help conduct research that identifies educational and job training needs
within the Indian community. More
Indian parent groups should be encouraged to organize and work to influence
the education of their children. Such groups could help develop grant proposals
and serve as advocates for bettering the education of Indian children and
youth.[97] Colleges and universities can help ensure
that Indian and non-Indian students are trained in nursing, teaching, business
and social work programs that pay special attention to the culture, history
and contemporary conditions of the LA American Indian community. Local school systems might help their
Indian students by providing adequate transportation for school and special
programs, increasing Indian cultural awareness among teachers, administrators,
and within textbooks, discouraging discriminatory incidents and practices,[98] encouraging volunteer peer
and adult counseling and tutoring programs to improve student work habits
and academic achievement, encouraging cultural presentations and exhibits
by members of the Indian community, and encouraging teacher training and awareness
of Indian history and culture.[99]
Child
Care Centers
LA Indian children ages
0-4 suffer very high rates of poverty, while American Indian families have
relatively high unemployment and low income. Furthermore, with higher than average rates of female heads
of households, many American Indian children are forced to live in economically
and educationally disadvantaged situations. Head Start programs, local preschool programs, and child care
centers would help alleviate the current devastating socio-economic conditions
of LA’s youngest Indian children. Preschool programs and Head Start can help alleviate language
difficulties and school environment adjustment of poor urban Indian children.
Urban Indian children do not participate in preschool programs at the
same rate as non-Indians and rural reservation Indians.[100] One reason may be cultural; Indian parents
will want to send their small children to more culturally agreeable environments.
Consequently, a series of preschool programs organized, administered
and staffed by American Indians may provide the type of care with which Indian
parents are comfortable. Indian children have low rates of participation
in non-Indian operated preschool programs; most likely their parents prefer
more culturally sensitive and community-oriented programs for their children.
Urban Indian preschoolers
need access to computer learning, audio-visual equipment, speech therapy and
special education programs, and psychological services. Parents need to be more involved, and
more preschool facilities need to be operated, administered and staffed by
Indian people. Preschools for
urban Indian children should be closely linked to community cultural events,
have considerable contact with elders and Indian community people, and provide
health information and care.[101] Child care services require greater parental
and community participation consisting of extensive communication among parents,
teachers, administrators, and children. Indian parents and community members need
to be empowered to act for the benefit of Indian children within the policy
and daily administrative needs of preschool care. Greater American Indian community advocacy
must provide a check and balance in order to ensure greater access to preschool
care, more funding, more involvement in policy and guidance of the preschool
facilities with Indian children. More Indian-operated urban child care programs and facilities
should be encouraged.[102]
Health
Care for Children
Urban Indians do not have
the same access to health facilities as do reservation communities, which
are often served by the IHS. In
Los Angles, the LA Indian Clinic provides primary care to many urban Indians,
but at the time of this writing it is not being supported by a substantial
IHS grant. Non-Indian health
providers are often reluctant to service urban Indians for fear of nonpayment. Many urban Indians can not afford health
insurance or have jobs that do not provide health insurance benefits.
Since many non-Indian service providers believe that Indians are taken
care of by the IHS, Indian patients are often referred to distant IHS facilities. Many new arrivals in LA are not familiar
with the private or public health system. Most newly arrived and low-income Indian migrants prefer to
visit an Indian health facility, where they believe they will be treated in
ways similar to reservation health care.
Language barriers, limited understanding of urban health care systems,
lack of health insurance, lack of money, and absence of trust all contribute
to inhibit urban Indians from using urban medical facilities. Indians often do not have good information
or contacts that can help them steer through the bureaucratic maze to find
agencies or basic health information and care in such areas as nutrition,
and prenatal and postnatal care.
Many Indians prefer to patronize
Indian-operated clinics. When
asked about the greatest strengths of the American Indian Clinic and the Eagle
Lodge (Alcohol) Recovery Program, a panel of LA Indian community members said
that the Indian programs provided convenient and affordable payment plans,
provided positive and professional role models for American Indian children,
were Indian operated, were staffed by culturally knowledgeable Indians, were
places where many tribes met and shared, and offered a variety of counseling
techniques. Also the counselors
were experienced community members who understood the situation of the clients.[103]
Health programs need to
improve access for American Indian women, who are in need of prenatal, maternal
and child care services.[104] Off-reservation health agencies are not
meeting the health needs of the urban Indian community.[105]
More Indian-operated health
facilities are needed, and more Indian doctors, nurses, other staff, and hospital
administrators are needed to make urban public and private health facilities
more user friendly and culturally aware of the urban Indian health client
population. Greater cooperation,
awareness, and cultural sensitivity are needed by IHS, county, local and private
health providers in order to ensure better health maintenance and education
for the urban Indian community.[106]
Substance
Abuse
As mentioned above, research
indicates that Native American youth tend to use alcohol, tobacco, and drugs
more frequently and at earlier ages than other ethnic groups. Indeed, some studies show alarming rates
of use by very young Indian children. The use of alcohol and drugs by urban Los Angeles American
Indian youth is not known, but if the more general studies are any indication,
then LA Indian youth are most likely experiencing high rates of harmful substances.
Substance abuse contributes to dropping out of school and to encounters
with police. More research is needed to understand
substance abuse among Indian children in Los Angeles. Alcoholism or drug use in the family was a significant concern
among 380 Indian community members surveyed by Eagle Lodge.[107] Alcohol centers and counseling are current
needs among the adult LA Indian community. The recent shutdown of Eagle Lodge and the Main Artery, both
Indian-operated substance abuse treatment centers, merely underscores the increased need for stable and reliable
treatment for adults and children.
Substance abuse prevention
programs may be more valuable for serving the needs of Indian children.
After gathering reliable data on substance abuse about Indian children
in Los Angeles, prevention programs need to be designed and made culturally
appropriate.
Indian
Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Needs
The Indian Child Welfare
Act of 1978 was designed to help ensure that orphaned Indian children were
placed in Indian homes where they could learn more about their culture and
community. Indian children in
LA are underserved generally by the ICWA and by county agencies. A significant problem is the lack of Indian
foster homes in which to place the over 300 Indian children in need of foster
care. More ICWA services need
to be provided to Los Angeles, although there is currently only one ICWA funded
project in LA County. This facility
is operated by the Southern California Indian Center.
A variety of issues and
problems are identified with delivering ICWA services in Los Angeles. Indian children and families are not always
identified as Indian by child welfare workers and courts. This has led to recent court cases on
the subject, and the development of the relatively unfavorable “existing
Indian family” doctrine by Californian courts. The courts hold that ICWA applies only if there is an Indian family enrolled in a tribe; those
who are not enrolled, even though eligible and having enrolled relatives,
are not subject to ICWA provisions that direct that such children should be
placed with Indian relatives, or tribal relations, or in an Indian home. Other issues emerge when Indian children
are not identified as Indian and are adopted by non-Indian families.
The LA American Indian Commission has intervened in at least one case
where a Cherokee child was put out for adoption to a non-Indian single parent. County child welfare professionals, administrators, lawyers
and judges are resistant to implementing ICWA. Many social workers, lawyers, and judges have little experience
or understanding of ICWA or of federal and tribal government relations based
on treaties, legislation, and legal precedent. Consequently, judges, social workers,
and lawyers sometimes see ICWA as a violation of individual rights, as discriminatory,
and possibly as a violation of constitutional law.
In recent years, ICWA projects
have developed multiservice programs including referrals, case planning,
group homes for unmarried mothers, adoption services for Indian families,
and parenting classes for Indian foster parents and staff.[108] Orphaned Indian children in LA County
continue to be underserved and need legal, administrative and community protection
of their rights under ICWA. More
funding is needed for ICWA centers, and either the existing ICWA program site
should be expanded significantly, or additional ICWA programs should be allowed
to operate in Los Angeles County.
Need for a Multiservice-Cultural Center and Network
During the 1970s and early
80s, urban Indian centers provided many centralized services such as counseling,
orientations to urban living, contact with positive role models and elders,
cultural events, financial assistance, job training, advocacy for Indian people
and programs, and other services. During the early 1980s, three urban Indian centers were operating
in Los Angeles, but all three were closed down in 1986 owing to financial
irregularities. The practice
of closing down the centers, instead of prosecuting misdeeds by individuals,
ran contrary to the needs and wishes of the LA Indian community.
Most surviving programs and staff moved over to work with the Southern
California Indian Center, which has for the last decade served the Los Angeles
Indian community through a variety of programs.
Indian centers provided community and cultural focus to the dispersed
LA Indian community. If there
is any pattern to the dispersed LA Indian community, it resides in the active
powwow groups and leaders. There
is a powwow in LA County and surrounding counties nearly every weekend. The Southern California Indian Center
is closely attached to southern dance traditions from the Oklahoma area and
to some Kiowa traditions and dance ceremonies. Community, culture, and service programs combine to make Indian
centers and organizations preferable places to meet and receive services.
Indian organizations and centers provide sensitive and supportive social
services and general assistance to Indians and their families.
Furthermore, Indian centers can provide platforms for advocacy for
more Indian programs and services, and can serve as referral and communication
link between local and county agencies and the Indian community.[109]
There have been attempts
to form and maintain multi-service and cultural centers since the 1960s. Many in the Indian community favor a more
centralized arrangement of services, community meetings, and cultural events,
although the dispersed character of the Indian community throughout LA County
inhibits the identification of a mutually agreed upon single location. In fact a single location might not serve
the Indian community very well, and a network of service, community and cultural
organizations might be a more realistic possibility. A centralized organization of services
could provide a variety of needed services within the Indian community. Some suggestions in the literature are
vocational training, development of Indian-owned small businesses, classes
on traditional languages and cultures, dissemination of information about
health, nutrition, education and civil and indigenous rights, sports and recreation
events for children, community meetings, substance abuse treatment, legal
aid, program advocacy, and child care.[110] A community-service center could also
be used for political mobilization, voter registration and voter turnout drives.
In a focus group discussion,
LA Indian leaders and community members in 1993 identified the need for a
cultural center for all ages as one of three most important problems.
The best overall solution to problems in the Indian community was a
cultural or community center with programs for children, the elderly, and
all others. Such a center would provide a place to
socialize, to put on dances and powwows, to allow interaction among the generations,
to furnish role models, to establish child care; it would function like a reservation “town
hall.” [111]
Other
LA Urban Indian Needs
Many needs are recorded
within the LA Indian community which are usually considered adult issues,
but which often directly affect the well-being of many Indian children and
families: employment, transportation,
adult job training, housing, legal services, elderly needs.
LA Indian employment rates are low and to some extent employment problems
can be alleviated with more education and job training.
The major job training grant for LA Indians is the JTPA grant managed
by the Southern California Indian Center.
This grant, however, is scheduled to expire in June 1997, and it is
not clear if there will be an adequate replacement. More job training and education are needed by the LA Indian
community. Low income and poor
adult job prospects can not but adversely affect the disposition of children
who live in poverty or near poverty situations. Transportation and housing are problems related to poverty.
Since the cost of housing in Los Angeles is very high, those urban
Indians who are unemployed or earn low incomes often are forced to live in
substandard and cramped living quarters.
Without a car or with only one car, Los Angeles can be a difficult
place to live, since the city and county have only recently begun building
train and subway lines to complement bus lines.
But the distances one may have to travel in Los Angeles, just to make
an appointment or keep a job, may range from 20 to 30 miles or more.
Travel by bus for such distances is prohibitive; while the cost is
low, the time needed to travel such distances often can take hours, and often
is impractical. The new subway
and train lines may help alleviate the transportation problems of low income
LA Indian community members, and Indian organizations should position their
service sites so that they are accessible to the train and subway lines in
order to maximize their access to Indian community members around the county.
Many urban Indians are in
need of legal information, advice and assistance. Many do not have an adequate understanding of their civil,
legal and indigenous rights. Indians
often suffer considerable abuse of their rights before comment or action. For most Indian community members, the
cost of lawyers prohibits the taking of legal action to protect their rights
and civil rights. There is need
for more legal education about civil and indigenous rights among the urban
LA Indian community. More non-Indian
lawyers, judges, legislators, county officials, and law-enforcement personnel
need to be better informed about tribal rights and federal law pertaining
to Native rights. Low cost legal
aid should be more readily available to the urban LA Indian community.[112]
A long-standing concern
within the LA Indian community has been the provision of additional senior
care facilities. Many elders
are people who were products of the early BIA relocation programs dating from
the 1950s. Indian elders often
are reluctant to use the non-Indian elders centers available within the county
and city. The elder population
is dispersed widely throughout the county, which inhibits delivery of services
for their needs. A culturally
relevant elder service center for American Indians does not now exist in Los
Angeles county.[113] An elder center should be integrated with
a multi-service network that would introduce and engage elders and children.
Children will find role models among the elders, and can learn culture,
and history from them. Such a program would contribute to forming
a multi-generational community, and would teach children about life in Los
Angeles. In the late 1980s and
early 1990s, the LA City/County American Indian Commission worked on creating
a multi-service center including comprehensive services for Indian elders.
A Survey
of Service Delivery for LA Indian Children[114]
This
assessment of needs and assets for American Indian children in Los Angeles
County was obtained through interviews with twenty-nine (29) Indian organizations,
nineteen (19) members of the American Indian community and fourteen (14) government
agencies that provide services for children. The interviews were conducted
via telephone and lasted anywhere between 10 minutes and 1 hour.[115] Attempts to contact representatives of
the county or city agencies who provide services in the area of adoptions
were unsuccessful despite repeated efforts. Researchers were often bounced
around agency departments in an effort to locate the appropriate people to
speak with, which indicates that clients who need services probably encounter
the same difficulty.
Indian
Organizations
American
Indian organizations provide a wide range of services to American Indian children
in Los Angeles County. Among
the services provided are tutoring; high school and G.E.D. classes; scholarships
for higher education; psychiatric counseling; drug and alcohol counseling;
academic counseling; cultural enrichment programs such as dance workshops,
storytelling and instruction in how to make dance regalia; sports events;
ICWA; foster care; court advocacy; family reunification services; and in-home
services for fetal alcohol syndrome children. Children are also the beneficiaries
of services such as hot meals, food baskets, homeless shelters, emergency
housing, shower facilities and clean clothing, supplies such as car seats,
diapers, etc.
Despite
the breadth of services listed above, gaps have been identified in services.
Most prominent among these is the area of health services. The loss of the
American Indian clinic means that there are currently no Indian-run organizations
providing extensive health care to the American Indian community. Due to issues of cultural insensitivity,
which will be addressed in detail later in this report, many American Indians
are reluctant to seek services from other providers, so the lack of an American
Indian health care provider is creating a problem within the community.
Other
services that have been identified as lacking for American Indian children
are a day care center, especially for children with single parents, nutrition
information classes, and a daily living skills class that would assist recently
relocated families in adjusting to life in an urban area the size of Los Angeles.
Also, because of the lack of sufficient American Indian foster families,
many American Indian children are placed with non-Indian families who know
little about the children’s culture.
A program should be instituted that assists non-Indian foster families
by training them to be culturally sensitive and to provide a cultural context
so that the family better understands the child’s background.
Although
many services are currently being provided, Indian organizations unanimously
noted that they are understaffed and underfunded to meet the needs of the
population. Often an organization may provide a service but the client may
not be able to receive the service immediately. For example, although many
of the Indian organizations provide tutoring programs, there are wait lists
for students who need tutoring because there are not enough tutors. With increased funding, which would allow
for an increase in staffing, organizations indicated that they would be able
to expand their case loads and the number of people receiving services, provide
more tools, therapeutic books and games that are culturally appropriate for
utilization in mental health counseling, bring traditional healers in as consultants
for patients, and open more clinics and satellite locations to increase the
number of people provided with convenient service locations. More outreach could be conducted because
the staff would not have to devote all of their time to providing services;
more cultural programs could be provided for children; and more attention
could be focused on preventative programs such as parenting classes, drug
and alcohol counseling, gang diversion activities and school retention programs,
rather than the primary focus being on crisis services.
Another
result of the lack of funds is that most of the money and services are crisis
services because the need there is most immediate. Although some cultural programs are being provided, such as
dance workshops that teach the children traditional dances, traditional storytelling
that teaches the children the myths and legends of their peoples, classes
that teach traditional beading techniques, and classes that show children
how to make their own dance regalia, there is a need to expand these programs
because there are currently not enough programs to serve the number of children
who could benefit from these services. Because most funds are devoted to crisis
services, there is a segment of the population who are not in crisis whose
needs are not being met. Also, if more preventative services such as those
mentioned in the previous paragraph could be offered, fewer children would
end up in a crisis situation. For example, the issue of providing more after-school
programs for children as a method of diverting children from gangs was mentioned
by several respondents. One interviewee
noted that, “Because American Indian children don’t all live in
the same area it creates a feeling of alienation because they do not know
other Indian children. This lack of belonging can lead children to join gangs.”
In
asking the organizations how they conducted outreach into the American Indian
community, we found that most organizations rely predominantly on word-of-mouth
and informational booths at pow-wows as the means of disseminating information
about the services that they provide. Because the organizations are already
serving more people than they can handle, there is the perception that their
methods of outreach are successfully reaching the population; however, they
are missing that segment of the population who may need services but do not
participate in pow-wows. Also, they may be missing people who don’t
need crisis services but could benefit from the prevention and cultural services
that the organizations do offer. “American Indian “ is a general
term that is utilized to refer to any person who is indigenous to the Americas;
however, despite the last that all fall under the same nomenclature, American
Indians are not a homogeneous group. There are approximately five hundred (500) different American
Indian tribes in the United States, each with their own distinct culture.
The American Indian population in Los Angeles County represents over one hundred
(100) different tribes. Because of the variety of cultures, there exists the
potential problem that if an Indian organization is staffed by people from
predominantly one region, this may alienate Indians from other cultures.
Because
service providers are already overburdened, the issue of improving outreach may by necessity be placed
in secondary importance to solving the problem of finding a way to provide
more services. It should not, however, be ignored as a necessary component
to improving services to American Indian children.
The
lack of a geographically defined population to which the Indian organizations
provide services creates a unique problem in adequately serving the population
of American Indian children. Unlike many other ethnic groups, American Indians
do not tend to settle within a close proximity to one another. There are several
reasons for this. One is that some urban American Indians were settled in
the Los Angeles area during the government program of relocation in the 1950s
to the 1970s, and were dispersed throughout the area by the government.
Another reason is that since American Indians come from different tribes
they have different languages and different cultures, and so there is no unifying
reason for them to live together. Because they are so spread out, transportation
is often problematic, since many of the people who need services have to utilize
public transportation. Several solutions to the problem of a lack of centralized
services were discerned from the interviews. These include providing transportation for people to the service
location via a van pool and the establishment of satellite locations in some
of the less accessible regions like the Antelope Valley or the San Fernando
Valley.
One
solution that was proposed by several people was to centralize the services
in one location:
“By working together we could eliminate the problem of being
spread out, the transportation problem. It would be nice to have one building
that provided all services in a centralized location.”
“There should be a community center. A centralized place where
families can go to network and get services or referrals. We are so spread
out that it is difficult for them to know where we are and who we are. A centralized
community center would be a place where organizations could reach out to the
community.”
“They need to centralize services. Too many groups are trying
to do the same thing.”
Another suggestion was to establish a network between the already existing
programs:
“There are too many small programs all spread out, they need
some type of network.”
The
major stumbling block that has been identified in centralizing services either
through one location or some type of networking is that the current distribution
system for funding promotes competition for funds and clients between the
various Indian organizations. Because they are set up to be in competition
with each other for necessary funding, it is difficult to maintain a cooperative
atmosphere. This situation also
creates an overlapping and duplication of services, creates difficulty for
the American Indian organizations to network with one another and with outside
agencies, and fragments an already small community.
One
solution offered was the “creation of an umbrella ninth (9th) region
in the county to account for and meet the needs of people who are not being
served by the current eight (8) region system. The needs of our small population
tend to get overshadowed by the needs of the dominant populations in the regions.”
Increased
funding would allow organizations to fill in the gaps that currently exist
in the services provided. Finding a way to eliminate the competition between
the various Indian organizations would improve communication between them,
resulting in an improvement in services to American Indian children.
Community
Most
community members are unaware of all of the services that are available to them. They are somewhat aware
of services that are provided by Indian organizations; however, of the nineteen
(19) community members interviewed, only one (1) mentioned government agencies
as an arena in which to receive services.
This community member has been a foster parent for thirty (30) years
and an education activist for fifteen (15).
According
to community members, the most successful programs work because they are staffed
with American Indians. They feel that the presence of American Indian staff
members promotes programs that are culturally sensitive, provides positive
role models, and cultural pride, and debunks stereotypes. The programs that
community members indicated they had a positive experience with were those
that were holistic in nature. Because of cultural sensitivity issues, American
Indian people professed a preference for receiving services at American Indian
organizations. One person noted that they preferred to receive health services
at the American Indian clinic because the staff there did not perceive themselves
as superior to their clients. A representative of an Indian organization noted
that, because of cultural sensitivity issues, “We only refer to mainly
Indian organizations. Clients want to deal with other American Indians. We
are not comfortable referring to a non-Indian service with whom we aren’t
familiar.” Another person noted, “Cultural sensitivity has always
been a problem. It starts with educating non-Indian adults. If an Indian gets
treated badly once, they will never go back and won’t get the help they
need. A lot of the way Indian people are treated is caused by ignorance.”
The
need for more American Indians working within the system and for improvement
in the area of cultural sensitivity is one with which representatives within
the agencies are also cognizant. Several comments regarding this issue follow:
“We feel we could improve services if we were to have more individuals
representative of the population to provide direct services and to aid in
developing treatment plans that are more culturally appropriate and to provide
hands-on assistance with clients. These individuals would not necessarily
need specialty training; if they were support staff or part of a group formulating
policy it would help to improve services.”
“Improvement of cultural aspects
of services provided depends on the membership on the council, so the solution
would be to have more American Indians involved in the policy-making, which
would make it easier to plan more culturally specific programs.”
“There is a need for more American Indian service providers working
with the community, and there are currently not enough American Indians with
the training to provide these services.”
“We would like to see more American Indian social workers and
support staff in social work and other government agencies. We would like
to see more community-based organizations serving as liaison between the governments
and the Indian community.”
Although
some individuals within agencies are aware of the problems in serving American
Indian children, individual awareness does not necessarily translate into
any attempts by the agency to address these problems at a policy level.
Given
the geographic dispersion of American Indian people in the county, importance
is placed on having an accessible location where American Indians could come
together as a group for cultural support and education for the children. As
noted above, it was felt that this would help to keep children out of gangs
because it would promote cultural pride, and self-esteem, and would create
a venue which would eliminate the isolation that American Indian children
feel. There are few American Indians in the
schools, and they become invisible in the school system because they are often
misidentified or lumped in with other ethnic groups.
Members
of the community feel that there are not enough services being provided for
the size of the population and the geographic regions where American Indians
live. Many programs that are offered, like the tutoring programs, have wait
lists because there are not enough providers.
Because the population is spread out, as one interviewee noted, “Lancaster
to Long Beach,” the location
of services and the ability of people to reach the services are issues of
great concern.
Because
of understaffing/underfunding, many organizations devote most or all of their
energies to crisis intervention. There are not enough programs that provide
for prevention or cultural enrichment.
The emphasis on crisis intervention, while necessary because people
in need must be cared for first, creates the situation of no long-term solutions
being funded to keep people from reaching the crisis state in the first place.
It creates, as one interviewee noted, “short-term band aids on broad
social problems for American Indians.” It also creates the problem of organizations not meeting the
needs of all strata of the population. Those who require more preventative
or cultural services are getting short shrift. This is not because there is
a lack of desire on the part of the organizations to provide these services,
but because limited funding requires that those in crisis have priority.
The
community members also perceive competition or uncooperativeness between Indian
organizations. This creates a duplication
of services, which leads to confusion in the community over where to get services
and whom to get them from. It may also create a reluctance to go to more than one Indian
organization to get needs met.
One
of the major problems perceived by the community for American Indian children
is the presence of cultural insensitivity and the perpetuation of stereotypes
within agencies, schools and the general population. The community members
felt that these issues could be addressed by more visibility of American Indians
in film and television, more positive and accurate depictions of both reservation
and urban Indians in the media, and more American Indian actors portraying
American Indians. One interviewee
felt, “We need to eliminate the Hollywood stigmatism (stereotype). We
need to let people know that American Indians have different appearances, help them in identifying American Indian
peoples, and to instruct them in cultural sensitivity, inform them that there
are cultural differences among the different tribes. We need better portrayals of American
Indians in Hollywood.”
In
the schools there is not only the problem of how American Indians are presented
within history, but one interviewee related an incident in which a teacher
utilized music from the Disney movie Pocahontas in a music appreciation
class without any consideration of how this would impact American Indian students.
Another
issue for which community members expressed concern is the use of American
Indians as sports mascots. It was noted that “mascots lead to stereotypes.”
One interviewee noted that it “belittles and patronizes American
Indians like we are subhuman. It’s just not right and the time has come
to change. It promotes negative stereotypes of Indians.” Although this
is an issue that is very important to the American Indian community, it was
perceived by members of the community as unimportant to non-Indians.
Many
community members perceived academic and cultural education as the best long-term
solution for the problems within the community. They felt that if American
Indian children complete a high school education and possibly go on to higher
education, their chances of being able to find well-paying jobs or careers
would improve. This would alleviate some of the financial problems that are
experienced; however, money is not the biggest motivator. The community perceives that so long as
children are given a strong cultural background they will go on to higher
academic learning and then bring their knowledge back into the community for
the benefit of everyone. American Indian college students come back to tutor
high school students; doctors, lawyers, and social workers come back and provide
services to their own communities. The success of this type of solution can
be noted in the following program:
This
school district has a tutorial program for students in which fifteen (15)
college students tutor high school students for nineteen (19) hours per week.
This helps to keep both groups in school by providing employment with a flexible
schedule for the college students and providing the high school students with
the help they need. They also have a scholars-in-training program in conjunction
with UC-Irvine. This program focuses on academically gifted students (those
with a 3.0 or better) who are then interviewed, along with their parents before
being selected for the program. In a survey of graduates from this program,
of the two hundred (200) students who participated, all but two (2) had gone
on to some form of higher education. Of the two (2) students who had not continued
in school after high school, one (1) former student had indicated that she
was going to go to college because she found she could not advance any further
in her company without a degree. The other former student indicated that she
was happy with her job, was getting married and most likely would not be working
at all after she was married.
Agencies
One
of the major findings is that county/city agencies are not designed to deliver
services to the American Indian population. County funding for services is
often based upon regional distribution. There are eight (8) funding districts
within the County of Los Angeles. American Indians, given their geographic
dispersion, do not make up a large enough percentage of the population in
any of these eight districts to make American Indians as a specific ethnic
group eligible for funding and services. As one interviewee noted, “Out of the entire LA city budget,
not one Indian specific program was funded. We have the highest levels of
all social ills and you think that we would receive more funding to deal with
these problems, but it’s just the opposite.”
Because
services tend to address the needs of the dominant population in the district,
many services claim not to have race-specific programs, and do not deny services
to anyone in need, but by default of location, i.e. South Central, East L.A.,
services are geared toward a particular ethnic group and predominantly address
the major social problems of this group. This creates a perception of non-inclusion,
resulting in a feeling of alienation in American Indians, who are generally
a population who are reluctant to seek out services, especially services provided
by non-Indians. Help-seeking behavior tends not to be the cultural norm for
American Indians, and rude and insensitive treatment by government agencies
makes it even more difficult for this population to go to the agencies for
assistance.
Our
research indicated that agencies are not aware of American Indian issues.
There is a lack of cultural sensitivity and knowledge about the needs of the
Indian community and tribal differences within the community. As noted above,
some individuals within certain agencies are aware of the problem, but seem
not to have taken any pro-active steps to address this issue.
Another
difficulty is the tendency on the part of agencies to link American Indian
issues with Hispanic issues and to link the two groups together. One agency
representative noted, “American Indian families will classify themselves
as Hispanic. We don’t even have a racial eligibility box on the intake
form. We don’t ask for race. We categorize by language.” A representative of an Indian organization
noted that government agencies “turn their back on Indians and lump
them in with Hispanics. We get swept under the rug.”
The
lack of training in dealing with American Indians creates a great deal of
misperceptions on the part of the agencies. They don’t understand that
many American Indian cultures believe it is rude to look someone straight
in the eye, which is diametrically opposite from the Anglo belief. Because
of this cultural difference, American Indian clients are perceived by agency
workers as untrustworthy or belligerent. Also, as one community member noted,
“Agencies tend to rush American Indians into procedures such as filling
out paperwork rather than being patient and drawing the person out more, offer
them a cup of coffee, to get the information necessary to provide them with
services.”
Agencies
are often either totally unaware and untrained to deal with American Indian
clients or agencies have an American Indian Unit or desk to which all American
Indian clients are funneled. These units are understaffed and underfunded
because allocations are made based on population, usually as given by the
census data, which many American Indians believe represents an undercount
of the Indian population. For example, one agency stated that in 1993 American
Indians made up less than 1% of their clientele and the representative felt
that was an appropriate percentage because American Indians make up less than
1% of the population. However, this agency provides services based upon income
level, and since American Indians in Los Angeles County rank second among
ethnic groups who have the highest percentage of the population living below
the poverty level, if services were being provided to all who needed and qualified
for them, it is expected that American Indians would make up a higher percentage
than one on par with the reported population. Agencies may not see a need
to outreach to the American Indian community because they think they are adequately
meeting this segment of the population’s needs.
One
prominent problem with government agencies dealing with American Indians is
the lack of identification of clients as American Indian. Clients are not being identified as American Indian because
the agency workers don’t ask, American Indians don’t self-identify,
mixed-race children are often misclassified in the other ethnic category,
and non-Indian parents with Indian children do not identify children as American
Indian. In a single-parent family, agencies often ask the parent who is the
primary caregiver if he/she is American Indian, and neglect to inquire about
the absent parent’s ethnicity.
Also, who qualifies as American Indian is based upon different criteria
depending upon the agency. Some rely upon self-identification, or tribal enrollment,
or status is determined by the agency.
In
speaking with representatives from various agencies, we found that they either
pass on clients to their Indian desk if they have such an entity, or to Indian-specific
organizations who are often not equipped to provide those services or are
already overwhelmed with present
workloads. In questioning a representative from one school district, the researcher
was informed that the representative contacted was not the appropriate person
to speak with, but that he/she would inquire as to the proper contact and
phone the researcher back. The representative followed through and told
the researcher to contact the American Indian Education Commission. To his/her knowledge, there was no other
person or division within the school district that addressed issues for American
Indian students.
The
agencies seem to think that the problems of American Indians are someone else’s
problems. This could be interpreted as a misperception of the federal trust
responsibility between the government and American Indian tribes. For example,
one interviewee from an Indian organization noted, “One of the major
problems that I’m aware of is the lack of sensitivity for Native American
people who go and don’t understand the system. Most recent has been
the health care system, the loss of the Indian clinic and the referrals to
non-Indian services. Some Indians are getting turned away. Since the closing
of the clinic we are hearing about that a lot more.” Since most agencies
seem to have very little familiarity with policy and procedures regarding
American Indians, non-Indian health care providers may be under the impression
that American Indians should receive their care through the Indian Health
Services (IHS), unaware that IHS does not offer services within urban areas
and that the client would need to return to their reservation to be treated
by IHS. With regard to the issue
of education, it is not clear if American Indians are not receiving services
through the school districts because of the assumption that educational assistance
should come from federal sources, or if it is due to the “invisibility”
of American Indians in the school system. That is, students may not be asked
to identify their ethnic background, or may be mistaken for other ethnicities
or lumped together with Latino students, resulting in their specific needs and
issues being overlooked.
Those
American Indian representatives who do work within the government agencies
expressed the desire to see programs established that are more culturally
oriented for American Indians.
A representative from an agency that supplies mental health services stated
that he/she would like to be allowed to bring in traditional healers as consultants
for clients. It was also noted that because American Indians do not have a
geographically defined population, they lose out on services that agencies
provide. While the agencies claim
these services are not race-specific programs, they do target specific geographic
areas and by default are race-specific.
Because
the agencies do not perceive a problem regarding service to the American Indian
population, there are currently no plans being made to address these shortcomings
in the system. This means that American Indians will continue to be underserved
and American Indian organizations will continue to be overburdened in supplying
necessary services to meet the needs of the community.
Education
Educational
issues were raised so often in interviews that the topic will receive special
attention in this report. There
are a number of different services in LA County that address American Indian
education. The public school
system (LAUSD) has a multi-cultural office. We were unable to reach this office
despite repeated efforts so it is not known if they provide any programs that
are specific to American Indian students. However, at the time this research
was being conducted, the multi-cultural office was not functioning with a
full staff and so were overburdened. There are some programs that are funded
by federal monies specifically for American Indian students, and most often
these come from Title 9 funds. The services that are available vary according
to the district. Some programs
offer both cultural and academic support to hundreds of students, including
tutorial programs, educational field trips, cultural enrichment programs,
informational newsletters, and higher education motivation and mentoring. Other programs serve as few as twenty-five
(25) students a year with a small grant that provides for a part-time academic
tutor. Despite the large differences
in the size and scope of these programs, there are many common problems.
All programs expressed a need for increased funding.
Although the programs feel that they are using funding as effectively
as possible, there are many more students who need more assistance than they
can provide due to a lack of sufficient staff. Another recurring issue was the need to promote more parental
involvement, including a knowledge of policies and procedures, and parental
responsibilities and willingness to bring their children in for services.
Another
common problem that every program had dealt with is the cultural insensitivity
of teachers, staff and curriculum materials. All programs spend time and effort on addressing stereotypical
curricula and insensitive teachers and staff. There was also a general feeling that
being a part of LAUSD limited the programs because they must rely on school
personnel to follow procedures and students to self-identify. Respondents often felt that they were
limited in what they could do because of the hierarchy and bureaucracy of
the school district.
There
is one organization that advises the school board on issues that affect American
Indian students. This office
has one full-time director and one full-time staff person; all other members
are volunteers. They act as a resource for Indian and non-Indian teachers
in the district and handles grievances of staff or parents against the district.
They represent the interests of the over 1,500 American Indian students enrolled
in LAUSD. This office also expressed
a desire for more parental involvement and community outreach.
They are concerned that there are students who could benefit from their
services and resources but who do not know of the services available to them.
There
are also Indian organizations that address the educational needs of American
Indian children in LA County. The
Education Component of the Southern California Indian Center provides both
academic and cultural services. They provide tutorial services, higher education/career
guidance, advocacy for in-school children and their parents, parental development
workshops, a resource library, educational/cultural enrichment, college visitations,
and dance workshops. Staff members are also involved in the community and sit on
commissions and task forces concerning American Indian education and welfare.
This office responds to the community need for academic as well as
cultural guidance. United American Indian Involvement also
provides preventative and cultural support for American Indian children. They run a drug/alcohol prevention program,
youth leadership program, and a youth summer camp.
One
program that is currently providing services to American Indian students is
the result of a partnership between the Southern California Indian Center
and LAUSD. Central High School is a continuation high school for American
Indian students. This institution provides the opportunity for approximately
forty (40) American Indian students to earn their high school diplomas. The
respondent expressed a desire to expand the program because there are a great
many American Indian students who need this second chance. One of their students
was on skid row when he entered the program. He now has an Associate of Arts degree and is
making a good living. This program
provides a valuable service in an efficient way, but it is a “last ditch”
effort. The respondent feels
that mainstream/traditional schools need to establish programs that address
the problems facing American Indian students.
Students need support before they get to a crisis point and drop out.
There
was great consistency among the respondents concerning the problems in the
educational system in regard to American Indian children. Both academic and cultural problems face
students. There is a need for
more funding for tutors and other academic assistance, especially from district
sources. Offices that provide
these services were universally underfunded and understaffed to adequately
meet the needs of the students. Respondents
also universally cited difficulties with cultural sensitivity among teachers
and administration. One respondent commented,”What we do is lovely and beautiful
but we wouldn’t have to do what we do (remedial education) if everybody
did their jobs well.” Low
parental involvement was also cited as a difficulty.
Despite
these many problems, education is seen as very important by the American Indian
community and service providers. It
is one of the few non-emergency services offered to and by the American Indian
community. It is seen as a hope
for the future, both for individuals and the American Indian community.
It is seen as a long-term solution to social problems.
There is not only an emphasis on academic education but cultural support
as well. This emphasis on cultural
education is seen to have two effects.
First, it is felt that students who have strong cultural identity and
support will feel less isolated. Alleviating
isolation is believed to help prevent students from dropping out of school,
engaging in high-risk behaviors such as drug/alcohol use, and desiring gang
affiliation. One respondent said,
“Students may drop out ...because they feel isolated.”
Another replied, “Geographic dispersion causes alienation of
American Indian children because they do not know other Indian children; this
lack of belonging can lead (them) to join gangs.”
Cultural programs may increase student pride and decrease isolation.
Cultural education is believed to be an important supplement to the
academic education American Indians receive.
This sentiment was expressed by an interviewee who stated, “There
needs to be much stronger gang diversion policies and approaches. The at-risk students tend not to go to school and participate
in other anti-social behaviors. Intervention at school is not enough.” Cultural programs are seen as an
effective intervention: “All programs for at-risk children should be
culturally oriented.”
Cultural
education is also perceived to have the effect of helping students achieve
an education without assimilating into the dominant culture. Through cultural education, American Indian
students can gain the benefits of a Western education without losing their
identity as Indian people. Many
respondents expressed the need for Indian students to go into higher education
but to retain their cultural identity: “We need to push for students to
achieve higher education (but at the same time) there needs to be more teaching
of culture.” These cultural
programs are seen as helping students to live in both Indian and non-Indian
worlds: “There are not
enough transition groups that assist students in learning where they fit in
the school system both culturally and academically.”
Educational
services is one area in which services overlap. Some of these programs do work together or at least communicate
with each other, but this is an area that could benefit tremendously from
increased communication and cooperation.
Indian
Child Welfare
Indian
child welfare issues came up so often in the interviews that the child welfare
system as applied to American Indian children will receive some discussion.
When
a charge is made about abuse or neglect of a child, the Department of Child
and Family Services sends a social worker to investigate. If the family self-declares that they are American Indian,
the case is forwarded to the American Indian Unit, a division of the Department
with social workers specially trained in the procedures of ICWA. If allegations
are proven true they provide services, through contract agencies, to ameliorate
the situation. If the child is
in imminent danger he/she is placed in a foster home, and services are provided by contract agencies
in an attempt to reunify the family. Indian Child and Family Services, a component of the Southern
California Indian Center, provides most of the contract services for American
Indian families. They provide
parenting classes, professional counseling, court advocacy, family preservation
and reunification services, and they license and monitor Indian foster homes.
These services can be mandated by the Department of Child and Family
Services, or the Juvenile Court, or families can come in voluntarily.
If a case goes to court it is primarily transferred to one judge with
an understanding of ICWA. The
family must self-declare American Indian heritage to be considered as an ICWA
case. The tribe is notified and may choose to intervene at this time. American Indian cases are generally treated
the same as other cases in the county court system, except (1) the tribe is
notified and (2) the burden of proof is different. To take an American Indian child away
from the biological parents, abuse must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt,
whereas in general cases the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.
If the parents do not receive services or if the situation does not
improve, the cases move to the Adoptions Department, and the children are
placed in an adoptive home.
Respondents
from agencies, Indian organizations, and the community all pointed to problems
within the system for American Indian children. Agency representatives saw problems with the small number of
preventative services such as parenting classes, drug/alcohol abuse programs,
and personal counseling. Families
should get the help they need before they end up in court. At that time it may be too late for the
family, and damage may have already been done to the children. This recommendation was supported by respondents in all categories.
Another
general concern is over the small number of qualified Indian social workers.
One agency representative said, “ We need more American Indian
service providers working with the community, and there are currently not
enough American Indians with the training to provide these services.
We would like to have an ongoing student intern program with students
who are working toward their MSW or American Indian students who have expressed
an interest in working in this area of study.” A community member was
more critical of unqualified personnel:
“The Department of Child Services and the county have tried to
pacify the LA Indian community by hiring unqualified personnel who domineer
the Indian community to bring in their children....They don’t want to
rock the boat and don’t advocate against the system when it doesn’t
work right. The Indians hired into the system end up protecting the system. They need qualified Indian people. More qualified social workers and service
providers, with education, training, and degrees.”
There
was also a great deal of criticism from the community about how Indians are
dealt with in the system. There
is a general perception that the county agencies are culturally insensitive. “The (agency name deleted) were
very hard on some of our clients. It’s
more than just a lack of cultural sensitivity. They were very judgmental and mean. There are some people in the agency who
are sensitive but mostly I’ve heard bad things.” Another interviewee replied, “Cultural
sensitivity is an ongoing process. The work is never done, the workers change and they have to
be trained on an ongoing basis. “
The
early identification of Indian children was deemed a crucial but difficult
area of importance by all three levels of interviews. The lack of early identification was attributed to a number
of problems. One agency representative
stated, “Earlier identification of Indian children is important so that
they can be transferred to the (American Indian ) Unit. We ask workers to ask parents up front.
If they are, then they call the American Indian Unit.
Most workers ask the question but we encounter families in crisis and
I don’t think they always tell the truth. Also, families might not be
together and we might not ask the second parent.
ICWA is complex and not all social workers understand it.” Another agency representative said, “I’m
sure there are cases that fall through the cracks because services providers
don’t ask or don’t know there are special services (and) laws
applied to Indian children.”
Another,
more critical respondent had this to say about the system: “The court has done everything to
keep jurisdiction of Indian children in LA County. They force tribes to bring motions in LA courts. Tribes may not have the funds or legal
help to help them with the court down here. The County tries to circumvent ICWA... A system (is needed) that follows what
is prescribed in the law (ICWA) and by court decision . They do not [follow the law] because it
is more expedient for the county and court system. They find ICWA too burdensome to follow and they don’t
know about it. Don’t know,
don’t want to know, don’t care. They don’t understand American Indians’ special
status.”
This
more critical sentiment was echoed by many Indian organizations and community
members. “ The city/county
is unaware of the legal nature of the relationship with Indian children. The special legal status is ignored.
There is a greater responsibility to Indians.”
However, the Indian community needs to take some responsibility upon
itself when it comes to identification.
“Indian people need to say that they are Indian, self-identify
early, tell kids and relatives when you are going for services that you are
American Indian.”
The
identification issue refers to both misidentification of Indian children and
the question as to who qualifies as an Indian child. The court system uses membership in a federally recognized
tribe as the criterion. This
may be problematic for urban Indian children who may not be enrolled in their
tribe or for members of non-federally recognized tribes. Lack of early identification is seen by many as the root cause
of problems with ICWA. One social
worker gave the following example: “The
mom says she’s not of Indian descent. She’s not getting her act together.
The children are placed in an adoptive home and then we find out they have
an Indian father. That’s
where most of the problems stem from.”
Finally,
another urgent problem with ICWA is the lack of Indian foster homes. According to ICWA, Indian children are
to be placed in Indian foster homes. Unfortunately there are fewer than 10
licensed Indian foster homes in LA county to serve hundreds of Indian children
in need. Interviewees offered two possible solutions. One is to send children to their tribes
instead of placing them in non-Indian homes. Another solution is more involvement from the Indian community
to become foster parents.
Indian
child welfare is a primary concern of the LA service providers and the American
Indian community members. Although
there is disagreement over the nature or causes of problems, there is consensus
about what the problems and possible solutions are. Most importantly, service providers, the courts, and the county
must obey ICWA. They must recognize
the special legal status of Indian children and respond in legally and culturally
appropriate ways. Whether this
circumvention of the law is done out of ignorance, oversight or malice, it
must be addressed by the county. There is a need to increase the number
of qualified American Indian social workers and foster families. Both the county and the Indian community
must take responsibility in addressing this problem. This may also alleviate the problems of
cultural insensitivity found in some county agencies. Finally, service providers, judges, and Indian community members
must be more diligent in their efforts to identify Indian children. Social workers must be trained and retrained
in ICWA, or at least make it their policy to ask every family under investigation
if either parent is of Indian descent.
Survey
Conclusions
It
became apparent throughout the course of our research that the majority of
services to the population of American Indian children in Los Angeles County
were being supplied by the Indian organizations. Because of a lack of cultural
sensitivity and of understanding regarding American Indians, both community
members and Indian organizations noted a preference for receiving services
at Indian organizations. The competition between organizations for funding,
and underfunding and understaffing, make it impossible for the various organizations
to meet the needs of the entire population. Suggested solutions include
1. To mitigate the problem of Indian organizations being placed in
direct competition with each other for financial resources, the system through
which organizations are funded needs to be modified, perhaps to create a ninth
(9th) district in the county for a more equal distribution of funds.
2. The county needs to make more funds available for services for American
Indian children.
3. To relieve the problem of duplication of services, to increase efficiency
and effectiveness of both Indian organizations and agencies, more networking
and cooperation between Indian organizations and between Indian organizations
and agencies is required. This
may also serve to improve the ability of agency personnel to deal appropriately
with American Indian clients.
4. On the issue of cultural sensitivity, training is needed so that
agency personnel can deliver services to American Indian clients in a culturally
appropriate manner, thus making American Indians more likely to seek services
at non-Indian agencies. An increase of qualified American Indian judges, social
workers, and other agency personnel would also serve to improve cultural sensitivity
in non-Indian offices.
5. With regard to stereotypical images and perceptions of American
Indians by the agencies and the general public, there must also be an attempt
to eliminate the stereotypical images of American Indians perpetuated by both
the popular media and the school curriculum, including the removal of all
Indian sports mascots in Los Angeles Unified School District.
6. Due to the unique legal status of American Indian children, agencies
must improve the methods for identifying ethnicity. Improved identification of children as American Indian will
ensure that programs and legislation designed to improve Indian child welfare
will be properly implemented and children will receive the appropriate services.
7. In order for ICWA to be properly implemented, along with improvement
of identification there must be more involvement from the American Indian
community to become licensed foster parents in the county.
8. To improve the availability of education services (both academic
and cultural) to American Indian children in Los Angeles County, there is
a need for more community (specifically
parental) involvement in these areas.
9. The loss of the American Indian clinic created a vacuum for American
Indian health services that is currently unfilled. The most desirable solutions
are for other American Indian services to fill this need within the context
of their existing services or for a new American Indian health provider to
be established for American Indians.
10. To provide American Indian children with a forum to learn about
their heritage, interact with other urban American Indian children, and develop
self-pride and confidence, more
cultural programs such as dance workshops, storytelling, and arts and crafts
need to be provided to supplement the academic curriculum.
11. In addition to cultural activities, other preventative measures
should be created to divert American Indian children from gang activities
and other anti-social behaviors. These preventative activities could include,
but are not limited to, after-school programs, recreational activities, and
organized sports.
11. So that all members of the American Indian community can become
aware of the services that are available to them, improved methods of outreach
must be developed. Utilization of the print and visual media, newsletters,
and improved dissemination of information in the American Indian community
may help to reach more potential clients than do current methods.
12. The problem of transportation for clients
to the locations at which services are provided could be addressed by providing
a van pool or shuttle service on a regular basis.
Many of the above-mentioned problems can be alleviated by centralizing
services either through a centralized location (with either satellite locations
or available transportation) or a networking together of existing organizations.
Toward
A Holistic Solution to Indian Children’s Issues
in Los Angeles County
The LA Indian community
suffers from a variety of funding, staffing, economic, education, health,
and service delivery problems. The
current arrangement of county and Indian organizations does not adequately
serve the needs of the LA Indian community.
The fragmentation of services, lack of cultural, social, and legal
understanding by non-Indian service providers and agencies, the chronic underfunding
and understaffing of services for Indian people, the lack of coordination
and communication, and the current competition between Indian and county agency
service providers create a chaotic maze of specialized and hard to reach services
available to the Indian community. Indian community members are reluctant and often unable to
take advantage of county and city services. Lack of money, lack of information, lack of cultural awareness
and understanding, transportation difficulties, and discrimination discourage
Indian participation in county agencies. More Indian personnel in administrative and service delivery
positions would help encourage Indians to avail themselves of county services,
but will not provide a coordinated or holistic service delivery solution to
the Indian community.
Most needy Indian community
members prefer to obtain services from Indian organizations. Nevertheless, Indian organizations are
few, understaffed, overworked, and underfunded, and they must compete for
funds with other Indian organizations and county agencies within an environment
of declining federal, state, and county social services. The Indian service organizations are not well coordinated,
services are not comprehensive, and current services are over-extended.
The current system of service
delivery to the LA Indian community and to LA Indian children needs reorganization
and rethinking. Indian children
and adults are not doing well in the current arrangement.
Child care, education (K-college) and health are especially critical
needs among Indian children in LA County.
The division of labor between Indian organizations and county agencies
needs greater coordination, communication, cooperation, and mutual cultural
and organizational understanding. Nevertheless,
given the specialized and fragmented services delivered by the Indian organizations
and agencies, many reports imply and Indian community members believe that
a more holistic arrangement of services would more effectively serve the neediest
portion of the LA Indian community.
Urban LA American Indian
children and families must have opportunities for community interaction with
other American Indians. Community
and cultural activities break down the isolation of children and families
by inculcating and upholding cultural values and practices, which promote
self-esteem and stronger community relations with others. A centralized, comprehensive, and culturally
based service delivery system for Indian families and children could have
strong preventive and healing effects. Many of the problems and difficulties families and children
face in LA County might be prevented or addressed when they are given regular
and frequent opportunities to engage in cultural, community and social service
activities such as language classes, health education, parenting education,
dance instruction, school tutoring and counseling, beadworking, literacy classes,
job training, substance abuse recovery and education, child care, youth recreation,
business training, legal advice and advocacy, housing information, mentoring,
relations with elders, counseling, and social services.
A variety of urban and LA sources indicate that services for the Indian
community must be delivered in a culturally appropriate manner and context. Many Indian service providers and Indian community members
already have the knowledge, expertise, and experience to develop and implement culturally appropriate
service delivery. Service fragmentation
and the broad dispersion of the LA Indian community throughout the county
inhibit access to effective services under the current state of affairs.
A network of culturally comprehensive and coordinated service centers
would overcome some of the problems of population dispersion and service fragmentation,
and would promote a holistic solution to health and well-being among the Indian
children and families of LA County.
Indians from many cultures believe that culture, health and community
are inextricably interrelated, and consequently a solution to the well-being
of Indian families in LA County must take into account the culturally specific
beliefs and modes of interaction that will promote the interconnectedness
of health, solidarity, and cultural relations.
Solutions to the problems of the LA Indian community must make cultural
sense to community members and must prove healthy in their own eyes.[116]
The formation of a centralized
multi-service cultural center has been a long-time dream within the LA Indian
community, especially since the demise of three cultural service centers in
1986. The location of one center
will prove geographically difficult for many community members. Many Indian organizations and county agencies
are dispersed in various locations around the county, and many are located
at sites that make good sense for servicing local Indian populations.
While a central location for a multi-service cultural center will create
a greater sense of community identity and mutual help and sharing, the present
scattered service delivery sites could be joined together into a centralized
and communicating network of service delivery units.
The central location and staff could help coordinate service delivery,
track clients, provide transportation between service sites, provide help
and aid to special cases, provide mentoring and assistance to those clients
who are referred to county or private agencies, and help coordinate community
information and activities. Such
a network or coalition of service delivery could be connected by email, by
telephone, by word of mouth at powwows, and through regular meetings, and
perhaps bylaws and democratic process.
Such a network or coalition dedicated to serving the needs of Indian
children in LA County may not be difficult to arrange or require prohibitive
funds. The organization of a
central multi-service cultural center with Indian management and staff will
be more expensive, but it is a key link in the process of building a viable
service system for LA Indian children and their families.
[1] For an analysis of U.S.-Indian policy during
the termination and relocation period see Donald Fixico, Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945-1960 (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1986),
pp. 134-182.
[2] Stephen Cornell, The Return of
the Native, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 132; Ned
Blackhawk, “I Can Carry on From Here: The Relocation of American Indians to Los Angeles,”
Wicazo Sa Review (Fall 1995): 18, 26.
[3] Report on Urban and Rural
Non-Reservation Indians: Final
Report to the American Indian Policy Review Commission (Washington:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1976), p. 23.
[4] James Gundlach and Alden Roberts, “Native
American Indian Migration and Relocation: Success or Failure.”
Pacific Sociological Review 21:1: (1978):119;
American Indian Policy Review Commission (AIPRC), Task Force on
Urban and Rural Non–Reservation Indians of the American Indian Policy
Review Commission, Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1976, p. 57.
[5] Arthur Margon, “Indians and Immigrants:
A Comparison of Groups New to the City,”
The Journal of Ethnic Studies 4:4(1977):19.
[6] Gundlach, “Native American
Indian Migration,” pp. 118.
[7] David Murray, “Modern Indians:
Native Americans In the Twentieth Century,”
British Association for American Studies Pamphlets in American
Studies 8, pp 22.
[8] Gundlach, “Native American Indian
Migration,” pp. 120, 123, 126.
[9] Janusz Mucha, “American Indian Success
in the Urban Setting,” Urban
Anthropology 13:4(1984):349.
[10] Cornell, The Return of the
Native, p. 132; Blackhawk, “I Can Carry on From Here,” pp.
18, 26.
[11] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1988; U. S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census; Michael Moncher, Gary Holden, and Joseph
Trimble “Substance Abuse Among Native American Youth,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology 58:4(1990):408.
[12] Joan Weibel-Orlando, Indian Country,
LA: Maintaining Ethnic Community
in Complex Society (Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1991), pp. 248-301.
[13] Los Angeles American Indian Commission,
“Urban Community Development: Policy Position Paper,” June, 1994.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Lee Little Soldier. “To Soar
with the Eagles: Enculturation
and Acculturation of Indian Children,”
Childhood Education January/February 1985:185-86.
[16] Abdollah Farrokhi, “Rapid City
Native American Population Needs Assessment,” American Indian Culture and Research
Journal 17:2(1993):159.
[17] T. D. LaFromboise, “American
Indian Mental Health Policy, American Psychologist 43(1988):388-397;
Michael Moncher, Gary Holden, and Joseph Trimble “Substance
Abuse Among Native American Youth,”
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 58:4(1990):408.
[18] M. N. Query, ”Comparative Admission
and Follow-up Study of American Indians and Whites in the Youth Chemical
Dependency Unity on the North Central Plains,” International Journal
of the Addictions 20(1985):489-502; Y. Redhorse, “A Cultural Network
Model: Perspectives for Adolescent
Services and Para-Professional Training.” Pp 175-90 in S. M. Manson (ED.), New
Directions in Prevention Among American Indian and Alaska Native Communities
(Portland: Oregon Health Sciences University).
[19] LaFromboise, “American
Indian Mental Health Policy.” p. 388; M. Beiser, “Flower of
the Two Soils: Emotional Health
and Academic Performance of Native American Indian Children,” Journal
of Preventive Psychiatry 2(1984):365-69; J. E. Trimble, “Drug
Abuse Prevention Research Needs Among American Indians and Alaska Natives,”
White Cloud Journal 3(1984):22-24; Moncher et al, “Substance
Abuse,”p. 408.
[20] LaFromboise,
“American Indian Mental Health Policy.” p. 388; Moncher et al, “Substance
Abuse,”p. 408.
[21] L. D. Johnston, J. G. Bachman and P. M.
O’Malley, Summary of 1987 Drug Study Results, University of
Michigan News and Information Service Press Release; Moncher et al,
“Substance Abuse,”p. 409.
[22] F. B. Beauvais, Oetting, E. R., W.
Wolf, and R. Edwards, “American
Indian Youth and Drugs, 1976-87: A Continuing Problem,” American Journal of Public
Health 79(1989): 635; Moncher et al, “Substance Abuse,”p.
409.
[23] Moncher et al, “Substance
Abuse,”p. 409.
[24] Moncher et al, “Substance
Abuse,”p. 408.
[25] Timothy Taylor, “Health Problems
and Use of Services at Two Urban American Indian Clinics,” Public Health Reports 103:1(1988):88.
[26] Jonathan Sugurman, George Brenneman, William
LaRoque, Charles Warren and Howard Goldberg, “The Urban American Indian
Oversample in the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey,”
Public Health Reports 109:2(1994):243.
[27] E. R. Rhoades, A. J. D’Angelo,
and W. B. Hurlburst, The Indian Health Service Record of Achievement
Public Health Report 102 (1987): 356-360; R. A. Hahn, J. Mulinare and S.
M. Teutsch, “Inconsistencies in Code of Race and Ethnicity Between
Birth and Death in U.S. Infants: A New Look at Infant Mortality, 1983-1985,”
Journal of the American Medical Association 267(1992):259-263.
[28] Morton Beiser, “Mental Health of
American Indian and Alaska Native Children: Some Epidemiological Perspectives,” White Cloud Journal 2:2(1981):37.
[29] “American Indians:
Urban Indians, Los Angeles County, and Rural and Reservation Indians,”
Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health.
[30] National American Indian Council, 'National/Urban/Off
Reservation Demographics.”
[31] Los Angeles American Indian Commission,
“Urban Community Development:
Policy Position Paper,” June, 1994.
[32] Urban Indian Coalition for Economic Opportunity
(UICEO), “Urban Indian Concept Paper for the Clinton Administration,”
January 1993.
[33] The Network for Cancer Control Research
Among American Indian and Alaska Native Populations, “A National Strategic
Plan for Cancer Prevention and Control to Benefit the Overall Health of
American Indians and Alaska Natives,” October, 1992. Appendix D, p.8.
[34] The Network for Cancer Control
Research, “A National Strategic Plan”. Appendix D, p.8.
[35] “Urban American Indian Policy
Position Paper,” Los
Angeles Native American Indian Commission, June 1994.
[36] The Network for Cancer Control
Research, “A National Strategic Plan”. Appendix D, p.8.
[37] Blackhawk, “I Can Carry on From Here,”
p. 17.
[38] Peggy Sarracino Barnett, Regina Toledo,
Karina Walters, Debra Lee, and Lael White, “Let Our Voices Be Heard,”
Los Angeles: American Indian
Clinic, Inc., March 31, 1994; See illustration entitled “Concerns of the Native American
Indians”.
[39] Calculated from data contained
in the State Census Data Center, Census of Population and Housing, Summary
Tape File 3, Los Angeles County, 1990, Sacramento, California. Cited in, Julie Solis, “American
Indian Feasibility Study: Final Report” United Way of Greater Los Angeles, July 12, 1993.
[40] 1990 Census Data Sample.
[41] Solis, “American Indian Feasibility
Study: Final Report,”
p. 4.
[42] 1990 Census Data Sample.
[43] Greater United Way of Los Angeles,
“Los Angeles 1994: State
of the County Report,” 1994.p.
11.
[44] Solis, “American Indian
Feasibility Study: Final Report,”
p. 3, 10.
[45] 1990 Census Sample.
[46] 1990 Census, Socio-Economic
Characteristics, California, Tables 157, 158.
[47] Solis, “American Indian Feasibility
Study: Final Report,”
p. 3.
[48] 1990 Census Sample.
[49] 1990 Census,
Socio-Economic Characteristics, California, Table 154.
[50] 1990 Census, Socio-Economic Characteristics,
California, Table 151.
[51] Solis, “American Indian Feasibility
Study: Final Report,”
p. 3.
[52] 1990 Census Sample.
[53] 1990 Census Sample.
[54] County of Los Angeles-Department of Mental
Health, Facts, American Indians, April 20, 1994.
[55] Barnett et al, “Let
Our Voices Be Heard,” Needs Assessment.
[56] Barnett et al, “Let
Our Voices Be Heard,” Needs Assessment.
[57] “Urban Community Development,.
Policy Position Paper,” LA
City/County American Indian Commission, June 1994.
[58] “Urban Community Development,
Policy Position Paper,” LA City/County American Indian Commission, June 1994.
[59] Los Angeles County Department of
Mental Health, American Indians, Urban Indians, Los Angeles County, Rural
and Reservation Indians, 1995.
[60] The immediately following material
on values and the community draws heavily from Rita Ledesma, Cultural
Influences Upon Definitions of Health and Health Sustaining Practices for
American Indian Children, Draft-Dissertation Preliminary Findings,
(Ph. D. Dissertation, Los Angeles, University of California, Los Angeles,
1996).
[61] Ledesma, Cultural Influences,
p. 5.
[62] This section on eligibility for services
of urban Indians in LA County is written by Carole Goldberg-Ambrose, professor
of law at UCLA.
[63] AIPRC Task Force Report at 7–8.
[64] See Memorandum from Solicitor,
Department of Interior to Secretary of Interior, M–36975 (Supp. I),
"Governmental Jurisdiction of Alaska Native Villages Over Land and
Nonmembers," January 19, 1993.
[65] R. Walke, Federal Programs
of Assistance to Native Americans: A Report Prepared for the Senate Select Committee on Indian
Affairs of the United States Senate (1991).
[66] 25 U.S.C. sec. 13.
[67] See, e.g., 25 C.F.R. secs.
20.20(a)(3) (social services programs); 26.5 (employment assistance services);
31.1 (enrollment in B.I.A. boarding schools). The Bureau's choice of "on or near"
the reservation echoes legislation that Congress passed in 1956 regarding
vocational training programs for Indians. The purpose of this statute, 25 U.S.C. sec. 309, is "to
help adult Indians who reside on or near reservations to obtain reasonable
and satisfactory employment...."
[68] 25 C.F.R. sec. 40.1.
[69] Morton v. Ruiz, 415
U.S. 199 (1974).
[70] Malone v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 38 F.3d 433 (9th Cir.
1994).
[71] 42 C.F.R. sec. 36.12.
The requirement of membership in a federally recognized tribe is
relaxed for IHS programs designed to recruit Indians into the health professions. 25 U.S.C. sec. 1603(c).
[72] 42 C.F.R. sec. 36.15(a).
[73] 25 U.S.C. sec. 1679.
[74] The list of HSDA's in the
Federal Register does not include Los Angeles County. 53 F.R. 32460 (1988).
[75] 25 U.S.C. secs. 1651–1653.
[76] See National Urban Indian
Policy Coalition, "Report to White House Domestic Council on Native
Americans," April 10, 1995.
[77] 42 U.S.C. sec. 1991 et seq.
[78] 42 U.S.C. secs. 620–628.
[79] See Welke, supra
note __, at 128.
[80] 42 U.S.C. sec. 1437c(c).
[81] 564 F.Supp. 1408 (D. Minn. 1983).
[82] Eligibility criteria are
specified in 20 U.S.C. sec. 238(c).
[83] Public Law 100–297;
102 Stat. 130, sec. 5312(2)(B) (1988).
[84] As another example, the
Bureau funds Indian education through contracts made under the Johnson–O'Malley
Act (JOM). However, JOM supports
services to 1/3 the number of Indian children in California as the Indian
Education Act administered through the Department of Education.
See Goldberg–Ambrose & Champagne, A Second Century of
Dishonor, Report to the Advisory Council on California Indian Policy
63–69 (1996).
[85] 25 U.S.C. sec. 1931.
[86] 25 U.S.C. sec. 1932.
[87] According to the 1990 census,
of the 75 largest metropolitan areas, only seven had more than 1.1% of total
population who are American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut.
[88] Valencia–Weber &
Zuni, "Domestic Violence and Tribal Protection of Indigenous Women
in the United States," 69 St. John's Law Review 69 (1995).
[89] Id. at pages 129–32.
[90] AIPRC, Task Force on Urban and Rural Non–Reservation
Indians, pp. 62-63.
[91] AIPRC, Task Force on Urban and Rural Non–Reservation
Indians, pp. 62-63.
[92] Mucha, “American Indian Success,” p. 341.
[93] AIPRC, Task Force on Urban and
Rural Non–Reservation Indians, p. 65.
[94] Little Soldier, “To Soar With
the Eagles, “ pp. 187-88.
[95] Little Soldier, “To
Soar With the Eagles, “ p. 190.
[96] AIPRC,
Task Force on Urban and Rural Non–Reservation Indians, p. 65.
[97] See for instance recommendations
by Farrokhi, “Rapid City American Population Needs Assessment,”
p.166.
[98] Perceptions of discrimination were
most often encountered in education according to a survey in Rapid City.
Farrokhi, “Rapid City American Population Needs Assessment,”
p.169.
[99] See for instance Farrokhi,
“Rapid City American Population Needs Assessment,” p.166.
[100] AIPRC, Task Force on
Urban and Rural Non–Reservation Indians, p. 64.
[101] AIPRC, Task Force on Urban and Rural Non–Reservation
Indians, pp. 64-65.
[102] AIPRC, Task Force on Urban and Rural Non–Reservation
Indians, pp. 65-70.
[103] Solis, “Results of
the Exploratory Interview Phase,” Attachment H, p. 1.
[104] Sugurman et al.,
“The Urban Indian Oversample,” p. 250.
[105] AIPRC, Task Force on Urban and
Rural Non–Reservation Indians, pp. 72-73.
[106] AIPRC, Task Force on Urban and
Rural Non–Reservation Indians, pp. 72-73.
[107] Barnett et al, “Let Our Voices
Be Heard,” Needs Assessment.
[108] Charlotte Tsoi Goodluck and Deirdre Short,
“Working with American Indian Parents: A Cultural Approach,” cited in Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, 'American
Indians, Urban Indians, Los Angeles County, Rural and Reservation Indians,
1995.
[109] AIPRC, Task Force on Urban and
Rural Non–Reservation Indians, pp. 76-77.
[110] Farrokhi, “Rapid City Native American
Needs Assessment,” p. 170.
[111] Solis, “Results of the Exploratory
Interview Phase,” United
Way of Greater Los Angeles; Attachment H, pp. 1-2; See also AIPRC, Task
Force on Urban and Rural Non–Reservation Indians, p. 75.
[112] See AIPRC, Task Force on Urban
and Rural Non–Reservation Indians, p. 74; Ledesma, Cultural Influences, pp. 5-6.
[113] Lucy Wilson, Beverly Sweetwater,
and Dennis Tofoya, “Providing Services for American Indian Elders
in the Greater Los Angeles Area: A Concept Paper” City/County Native American Indian Commission’s American
Indian Elder’s Sub-committee (early 1990s); Solis, “Results
of the Exploratory Interview Phase,” pp. 5-6.
[114] The survey research and writing was
carried out largely by Amber Machamer and Bethany Phillips.
[115] Copies of the interview protocol
are available at the UCLA American Indian Studies Center.
[116]
See for example, Ledesma, Cultural
Influences, pp. 1-6; AIPRC, Task Force on Urban and Rural Non–Reservation
Indians, pp. 75-76; John Red Horse, Ronald Lewis, Marvin Feit, and James Decker,
“Family Behavior of Urban American Indians,” Social Casework (February 1978):
71-72; Solis, “American
Indian Feasibility Study: Final
Report,” pp. 3-8; Farrokhi,
“Rapid City Native American Needs Assessment,” pp.170-71.
UCLA American Indian Studies Center
3220 Campbell Hall, Box 951548
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1548
310 / 825-7315 FAX 310 / 206-7060
aisc@ucla.edu
Last Updated : July 2, 2002
Copyright ©The Regents of the University of California.
All Rights Reserved. American Indian Studies Center.