Abstract
Despite the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act nearly 50 years ago, Indigenous children are persistently disproportionately represented within the child welfare system, yet continue to be overlooked in the debate between abolition and reform in the social work literature. Purpose: As these disparities continue to widen, social workers fail to recognize the unique struggles of Indigenous children and families upon encountering the child welfare system. Design: The present work provides a historic overview of Indigenous child welfare interaction, grounds discussions in coloniality, and implicates social work’s complicity in perpetuating the genocidal fiscal economy of Native child trafficking. Results: Through a lens of Indigenous child welfare, we sift through the abolitionist versus reformist debate, introduce the Indian Child Welfare Act as an example of a non-reformist reform, and conclude with implications for social work practice.
Keywords
Indigenous children continue to be disproportionately represented within the child welfare system (Bussey & Lucero, 2013) despite the passing of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) nearly 50 years ago. There is an ongoing and increasing number of calls to address Indigenous overrepresentation in child welfare systems globally, particularly settler states such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (CANZUS countries) which continue to see alarming rates of Indigenous children coming into care (Paki Paki et al., 2024). The majority of existing literature continues to document the overrepresentation of Indigenous children within the child welfare system and explore the problematic consequences of this involvement (Paki Paki et al., 2024), with social work child welfare scholars entering a particularly heated debate over the cause for these disparities and disproportionalities across racial and ethnic groups (Barth et al., 2020; Berrick et al., 2022; Dettlaff & Copeland, 2023; Dettlaff et al., 2023).
There is a long history of the U.S. child welfare system using out-of-home placement more frequently with communities of color, especially Black and Indigenous children (Bussey & Lucero, 2013). Scholars recommend looking at multiple decision-making points in the child welfare process, noting that disproportionality is typically more pronounced at the investigative stage compared with others like substantiation (Crofoot & Harris, 2012); however, throughout every stage of the child welfare system service provision, disparities for Indigenous youth increase rather than diminish (Bussey & Lucero, 2013). Despite the increasing demonstration of need and ever-widening disparities, non-Native social work scholars in the abolitionist versus reformist debate have failed to recognize the unique struggles of Indigenous children and families encountering the child welfare system. The present work provides a historic overview of Indigenous child welfare interaction, grounds discussions in coloniality, and wades through the abolitionist versus reformist debate through a lens of Indigenous Child Welfare, introducing non-reformist reform and concluding with implications for social work practice.
Historic Formation of Indigenous Child Welfare
Historic Harms
Around the early 1800s, the U.S. federal government began to specifically target Native children as the most expedient means of assimilation (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024), using a policy campaign to sever cultural ties and disrupt kinship through forced removals from families, displacement from traditional homelands, and mandatory boarding schools (Bussey & Lucero, 2013). Indigenous scholars have used several terms such as intergenerational or historical trauma to describe this mass group trauma emanating from colonialism and cultural genocide for American Indian and Alaska Native communities (Brave Heart et al., 2011; Pember, 2016). Boarding schools in particular were sites of forced assimilation, with actions against Native children including separation from family and forbidding family contact, punishment for children speaking their Native language, removal of their long hair as a means to cut ties with one’s culture, physical and sexual abuse by school staff, and even death (Pember, 2016). Historical trauma from the legacy of physical and sexual abuse at these colonial institutions interrupted traditional child-rearing practices and healthy transmission of culture across generations. This leads to present day child welfare vulnerability as a result of trauma history, lack of parental role models, poverty, and enduring negative stereotypes of Native peoples (Sebwenna-Painter et al., 2023).
Non-Native adoption of Native children evolved from a widespread problem in the early 1900s to a full-blown systematic issue by 1959 with the Indian Adoption Project (IAP; Bussey & Lucero, 2013). Through a collaboration between the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), the nation’s oldest and largest membership-based child welfare organization (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the IAP sanctioned private adoptions of Native children by white families (Bussey & Lucero, 2013). In 1968, the IAP was incorporated into the Adoption Resource Exchange of North America (ARENA) to place even more children outside of their homes (Edwards et al., 2023). This led to the removal of Native children to make them available for public adoption a standard practice. Indigenous children were specifically targeted and placed in non-Native homes to learn settler norms and values (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024) and advertised as in need of homes, as forgotten Native kids (Edwards et al., 2023; Landers & Danes, 2016). These campaigns sought to erase their kinship and nation ties, reflecting the white colonial logic of terra nullius, meaning a no man’s land or the broader settler fantasy that the lands were empty and therefore open for colonization (Mack & Na’Puti, 2021); thus, white families could project their hopes and desires onto Native children without guilt (Kristjansson, 2024). In 2001, director of CWLA Shay Bilchik took ownership of the problematic methods of the IAP, stating it was wrong, hurtful, and thinking about it surfaces feelings of shame (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019).
By the 1970s, nearly one third of all Native children born since 1900 had been removed from their Indigenous family and adopted by non-Natives (Sebwenna-Painter et al., 2023). Between 25-35% of Indigenous children were in out-of-home placements, with 85% placed away from their home community in foster care, adoptive homes, or institution-like boarding schools (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019). The 1970s are marked by concerted effort by tribal officials to call for federal legislation, ultimately resulting in the 1978 passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act (Bussey & Lucero, 2013).
Contemporary Crises
A recent scoping review of Indigenous involvement in North American public child welfare systems, Haight and colleagues (2018) found high levels of need, a lack of accessible and culturally appropriate services, and significant challenges for Native families such as racism, lack of responsiveness, and systemic mistrust. Native families face three key challenges with child welfare involvement: (a) overcoming the fear they will lose their children, just like countless Native people before them, (b) prevailing over caseworker’s lack of cultural knowledge, and (c) being judged as inadequate parents due to colonial stereotypes (Bussey & Lucero, 2013).
Despite the passage of ICWA nearly 50 years ago, Indigenous children continue to be removed at a rate 4 times that of other children, with 56% placed out of their home community; this reflects only a 29% decrease from when ICWA went into effect in 1978 (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019). Recent research maintains that Indigenous children are still more likely to be removed from their homes, stay in out of home care longer, and spend longer in private and public systems compared with white foster youth (Edwards et al., 2023). Most recent national foster care data shows that Native children enter foster care at a rate 3 times that of white children (9.1 to 3.1 per 1000; Waubanascum & Sarche, 2023). These contemporary levels of foster care for Indigenous communities remains similar to rates nearly half a decade ago when ICWA was first passed (Edwards et al., 2023).
Coloniality in Child Welfare
One cannot sever the removal of Indigenous children from the colonial context within which these removals occur, embedding them in institutions whose actions are justified by settlers’ “good intentions”; however, child removal is an act of colonial violence, not benevolence (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). The false assumption that child welfare policies act benevolently to protect children from further harm is debunked through empirical evidence which has found that youth removed from their homes are 2 times more likely to experience trauma than those who receive services at home (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). Furthermore, the removal of Native youth from their homes by child welfare authorities has been found to independently predict self-harm, mental illness, and suicidal ideation and attempts (Cedar Project Partnership et al., 2015).
Child welfare scholars must understand the contemporary contact with the child welfare system for Indigenous communities within the broader context of historic and ongoing settler colonialism (Edwards et al., 2023). The child welfare system is a colonial institution embedded in a larger constellation of power relations (Coulthard, 2014) that enacts racial biases in its operation and continued consolidation of state power over Native communities (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). This white supremacy cannot be extricated from the systemic colonial processes that continue to eradicate Indigenous lands and lives (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). The settler state uses family separation as a genocidal tool (Edwards et al., 2023) to justify the imposition of control over Indigenous families through the shifty presentation of intervention policies, entrenching structural violence and epistemic hierarchy to advance assimilation under the guise of prison, child services, and youth detention among others (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). Child protection was created as a way to assimilate; research with Indigenous relative caregivers shared, “Our system is written by colonizers to maintain control, plain and simple” (Waubanascum & Sarche, 2023, p. 357).
Overall, the U.S. colonial pursuit of white civilization is unrelenting and ongoing (Waubanascum & Sarche, 2023) as efforts to eradicate Native Nations have developed and persisted with support from federal and state governments alike as well as leading social work organizations until the passage of ICWA (Edwards et al., 2023). The central logic of settler colonialism is the necessity to exterminate Indigenous peoples by any means necessary, including eradication or assimilation (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). Child removal and separation are forms of colonial violence that remain in the child welfare system today (Waubanascum & Sarche, 2023). Settler colonialism is produced and reproduced in child welfare legislations and policies and by the individuals in these systems as well as the broader society which permits the ongoing oppression of Indigenous peoples and communities of color through stigma and general apathy (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). Ultimately, the child welfare system remains a persistent source of harm (Edwards et al., 2023).
The settler state’s child removal systems reflect a white desire for a genocidal economy that disappears Native children into a political economy that equates Indigenous youth with the amount of money allocated for their apprehension and “care” (Kristjansson, 2024, emphasis added). In colonial terms, children are economic resources for labor (Crofoot & Harris, 2012), a commodity with economic value (Kristjansson, 2024). The Indigenous child welfare system has become an economy, with the will to disassemble being very actively resisted (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). This genocidal fiscal policy constrains the work that white liberal care performs, ultimately ensuring continued removal and dispossession (Kristjansson, 2024). This is a routine and systemic genocide through the child welfare system—the removal and incarceration of Indigenous children creates an entire economy that secures jobs for bureaucrats and caseworkers, generates income for settler families, and facilitates the continued plunder of Indigenous lands and lives (Kristjansson, 2024).
One author referred to this as murderous liberal bureaucratic care (Stevenson, 2012): the removal of Native children from their kin and nations and establishing their worth through the monetary amount exchange for their “care.” The child welfare system operates from the fundamental assumption that investing in Native families is useless as evidenced by the ongoing choice to remove Native children from their homes while simultaneously profiting from the child welfare economy (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024), as settler families covered the costs of housing and adopting Native children, privatizing the cost of genocide (Edwards et al., 2023). For example, federal funding for many services for children and families is only available in out of home foster care placements, thus incentivizing social workers to remove children to trigger funding for necessary services (Edwards, 2016). There is a greater amount of money available for Native child welfare removal practices while greater investments for other children are made in prevention programs (Kristjansson, 2024). In the 70s, Native youth left foster or adoptive homes with nothing, while the settler state banked savings from keeping them in care, even providing stimulus to settler families that Native families would never get to care for their own children (Kristjansson, 2024). Today, many tribes do not practice adoption and thus fail to qualify or benefit from these adoption subsidy programs; however, 2018 modifications to this policy allow children who attain permanency via guardianship to now qualify for the subsidy (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2024), a practice much more in alignment with tribal beliefs and practices. Ultimately, historically and through today, the settler state subjugates Native children as permanent wards of the court which leads to substantial paychecks to lower- and middle-class white families as they assimilate Indigenous children (Kristjansson, 2024). Native child apprehension and subjugation through the child welfare system is and always has been big business.
Unsettling Social Work
The inherently colonial nature of social work is realized through the discipline of individuals through institutions where colonization is firmly embedded (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). These helping professions operate within a broader system that sustains its privilege by devaluing those who fall outside the (white, Western, colonial) norm and seeks to assimilate them into their standard ways of being (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). The trauma and cultural genocide of the boarding school and adoption eras has had a continued lasting impact on how Indigenous communities view the entire profession of social work (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019).
Social work cannot forget the role it has played in colonizing efforts that led to the trauma and oppression of today (Asher BlackDeer & Gandarilla Ocampo, 2022; Thibeault & Spencer, 2019). Social workers are closely associated with the Indian Adoption Era, a policy era spanning the time during and after the Boarding School Era, in which social workers were employed by the federal government to remove children from their homes and place them in boarding schools (Adoption History Project, 2012); similarly, social workers were employed by the CWLA and placed children throughout the Indian Adoption Project (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019). Furthermore, social workers also carried out the enforcement of rations and food limitations on families noncompliant with boarding school policy (Cote, 2024). Present day social workers in child welfare systems are often placed in a contradictory role—stuck between their administrative liberal bureaucratic conception of care in the best interests of Native children and the motive to make placement decisions according to settler funding formulas that equate Indigenous children with a specified dollar amount (Kristjansson, 2024). Social workers must balance enforcing coercive social control over parenting while also providing supportive services and resources to identified families (Edwards, 2016). However, the implementation of ICWA alone has not been enough to spur social workers to work respectfully with Indigenous populations (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019); these systemic colonial perspectives need to shift. Non-Native social workers continue to hold the power to intervene in Native families, perpetuating the belief that settlers have a moral obligation to bring Indigenous peoples into modernity (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024) through white intervention. This paternalistic perspective seeks to save Native people from themselves, further upholding the belief of Indigenous inferiority to justify dispossession and assimilation (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024).
We must uproot colonial biases to interrupt these injustices; when colonialism is framed as a thing of the past, child welfare scholarship perpetuates colonial thought and action in social work practices, policy, and research (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). A critical example of subversive social work exists in the work of social worker David Fanshel. Fanshel was hired by the CWLA to demonstrate the success of the IAP to promote and increase adoption (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019). Results of his five-year research held that placing Indian kids with white families was “low risk”; that adoption was seen as positive for the adopting family; and that Indian adoption ultimately saved the government money because they did not have to pay for foster care or boarding schools; however, at the conclusion of his findings, he did report doubt about his findings, saying, “It is my belief that only Indian people have the right to determine whether their children can be placed in white homes” (Fanshel, 1972, p. 341). These views are further reflected in CSWE’s Statement of Accountability and Reconciliation for Harms Done to Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (Weaver et al., 2021). Recognizing self-determination and sovereignty is inherent to uprooting coloniality in child welfare and social work at large. To live by the mission of social work, we must specifically advocate for the recognition of rights and self-determination of Indian Country; Indigenous social workers invite the critical reflection question: How are social workers honoring the profession’s core values (upholding social work’s social justice mission) versus how are they honoring the establishment (perpetuating colonial practices)? (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019, p. 828).
Reform or Abolition?
All Indigenous efforts to keep Native children in family, community, and nations has created an Indian Child Welfare perspective that is vital to understanding disparities and disproportionality in child welfare (Crofoot & Harris, 2012). This Indian Child Welfare perspective is grounded in Native resistance—all efforts by tribes to keep and reclaim our children and resist the colonial oppression of the federal government; Indigenous resistance is the embodiment of daily enactments of care to ensure our kin are not abducted by the state (Kristjansson, 2024). One cannot discuss disparities and disproportionality without Indigenous resistance (Crofoot & Harris, 2012). This section examines efforts to reform and abolish the child welfare system, critiques their effectiveness and depth, and analyzes the role of intersectionality. Through these lenses, we assess the challenges and possibilities of restructuring a system deeply intertwined with racial and systemic biases.
Reforming the Child Welfare System
Reform within the child welfare system requires critical examination and restructuring of current practices based on evidence and insights from recent research. According to Barth et al. (2020), one essential aspect of reform is the application of scientifically validated interventions that address specific vulnerabilities within child welfare. They emphasize the importance of developing interventions that are both effective and culturally sensitive (Barth et al., 2020). There are several interventions and guidance for seeking Indigenous ways of knowing to inform child welfare services. Rides at the Door and Trautman (2019) provide cultural considerations for systems, organizations, and individuals working with Native Nations, particularly how to infuse cultural humility into trauma-informed practices. Similarly, Red Horse and colleagues (2001) developed a tribal family preservation model that emphasizes sovereignty and kinship to equip staff with cultural knowledge to implement the intervention while Weaver (2003) offers a comprehensive Indigenous family preservation curriculum. These interventions have been offered for nearly a quarter of a century, yet these disparities in Indigenous child welfare persist.
Meanwhile, Berrick and colleagues (2022) argue for a reform model that prioritizes the dismantling of misconceptions through evidence-based practices. They suggest that many current reform efforts fail because they are not grounded in solid empirical research, leading to policies that do not effectively address the underlying issues of the child welfare system (Berrick et al., 2022). Several Indigenous child welfare scholars have sought to remedy the foundation of problematic evidence-based practices by grounding research in Indigenous ways of knowing. Indigenous culture is often at odds with dominant culture reflected through the child welfare system; Native communities hold traditions and values while the western way centers individuality, independence, confidentiality, and authority (McNally, 2019). Despite the diversity of Native Nations, there are general overlaps in valuing traditional teachings, place-based solutions, unique and contextual approaches tailored to their communities (Paki Paki et al., 2024). Indigenous communities are connected by shared ontological viewpoints and relationality with all things throughout expansive views of time and space (Blackstock et al., 2020). These expansive worldviews become the foundation for Native services and programming built to serve Native families.
In contrast, mainstream western ontologies assume deterministic thinking, privilege new forms of knowledge, and give primacy to individual rights (Blackstock et al., 2020). Utilizing western frameworks for tribal child welfare services will fundamentally result in a dysfunctional system due to this incompatibility. Western approaches center fidelity of the intervention as objectivity and generalizability are central to research reproduction; however, Indigenous approaches value highly customized means to allow for tribal specificity. Western frameworks discard traditional knowledge and wisdom that knowledge keepers pass down about caring for Native children throughout time. The Western focus on individual rights frames child welfare through a privileging of independence rather than community interdependence, often leading to restrictions in community models of care. Examples of this mismatch in child welfare services include western pressure for time-limited child protective services whereas Indigenous perspectives value an open-ended process (Paki Paki et al., 2024).
In their paper, Garcia et al. (2024) highlight the stark implications of current child welfare practices, particularly the adverse effects on marginalized communities. They advocate for reforms that go beyond superficial policy changes and address systemic biases that disadvantage certain groups, such as the ways in which Indigenous family culture is often used as a pretext for removal, pathologizing manifestations of poverty and cultural differences such as room sharing or multi-generational households (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019). This reformist research calls for an overhaul of practices to ensure fairness and equity in child welfare interventions (Garcia et al., 2024), such as addressing the no-win situation Indigenous families face when encountering the child welfare system, either renounce your culture or lose your kids (Bussey & Lucero, 2013). Finally, Berrick et al. (2022) discuss the role of continuous dialogue and critique in shaping effective reforms. They emphasize that reform is an ongoing process that must adapt to new challenges and evidence, ensuring that child welfare services evolve to meet the needs of all children and families effectively (Berrick et al., 2022).
Critiques of Reforming the Child Welfare System
Critiques of reforming the child welfare system emerge strongly in the literature, highlighting the limitations and unintended consequences of reform efforts. Dettlaff et al. (2023) articulate that the child welfare system, under the guise of reform, continues to enforce structures of racial oppression, often failing to address the systemic biases embedded within its operations. Indigenous child welfare perspectives take this a bit further, holding that this systemic bias in child welfare policies is really not enough, but that they are actually genocidal policies (Crofoot & Harris, 2012). Furthermore, the authors argue that reformist approaches inadvertently sustain the very conditions they aim to change, such as racial disparities in child removals and the subsequent traumas inflicted on children and families (Dettlaff et al., 2023). Indigenous child welfare scholars have similarly cautioned against these approaches, noting that re-regulation of child welfare under Indigenous authority just continues state authority in a different form. Rather than supporting sovereignty, settler governments offset their own accountability by forcing Native people to accept responsibility for a set of issues that extend beyond their actual decision-making power and jurisdiction they’ve been granted by the settler state (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024).
Dettlaff (2022) further critiques the reform approach by emphasizing the historical persistence of racial biases within the child welfare system. He points out that reforms often overlook the oppressive origins of child welfare practices, which are deeply intertwined with the nation’s history of racial inequality. As such, reforms may perpetuate harm under the continued influence of these historical biases, suggesting that the mere modification of policies without a radical rethinking of underlying principles may be inadequate (Dettlaff, 2022). The history of Indian child welfare extensively documents institutional bias and racism, from US policies designed to remove Indigenous children from tribes and undermine Native families at the benefit of non-Natives, to the present-day realities of ongoing removal and dispossession (Crofoot & Harris, 2012). For example, funding allocations differ from states and tribes: states are fully funded by government entities while tribes are often set up to fail unless they independently raise money to subsidize their programs. This history and persistent disparities suggest that simply Indigenizing child welfare is not sufficient to overcome the colonial legacy of the system itself.
In addition, Dettlaff and Copeland (2023) address the insufficiency of reforms in dismantling the foundational issues of the child welfare system, which they describe as a “family policing system.” They criticize reforms for often reinforcing the surveillance and control mechanisms that disproportionately affect Black families, arguing that these measures contribute to a cycle of poverty and state dependency rather than resolving the core issues of inequality and injustice (Dettlaff & Copeland, 2023). Indigenous child welfare scholars similarly note the child welfare system as a system of surveillance pendent upon detection and reporting (Edwards, 2016), noting the insidious and continuous nature of perpetual surveillance as anti-Indigenous state violence (Kristjansson, 2024).
Finally, in his analysis, Dettlaff (2024) offers a poignant critique of the failure of reforms to achieve the abolitionist goals of a racially just society. He discusses the unrealized aspirations of reform movements that aim to correct systemic faults but fall short of addressing the entrenchment of racial capitalism that underpins societal structures, including the child welfare system. Dettlaff (2024) argues that without confronting these foundational economic and racial dynamics, reforms will continue to be superficial and ineffective. These critiques highlight the deep-seated structural flaws within the child welfare system and reinforce the abolitionist argument that mere reform may perpetuate existing inequities. They suggest that only a complete dismantling and reimagining of the system, with a focus on community-based support and racial justice, can truly address the historical and systemic biases entrenched in child welfare practices. These similar lineages of abolition are apparent throughout Indigenous child welfare (Kristjansson, 2024).
Reform and Intersectionality in the Child Welfare System
Reform efforts within the child welfare system have been predominantly framed around the binary of Black and white family dynamics, which has often led to a marginalization of the diverse experiences of Indigenous, Hispanic, and Asian families. In recent reviews seeking to identify approaches to address racial disproportionality across the child welfare continuum, Murphy and colleagues (2024) identified one Native-specific intervention (Bussey & Lucero, 2013) however failed to discuss colonialism or ICWA at all. Furthermore, despite having the highest average disproportionate disparity rate at each step of the child welfare continuum, Murphy and colleagues (2024) only spoke about Black youth and failed to mention any Indigenous-specific data despite the plethora of evidence demonstrating these disparities at every step of the child welfare system.
Indigenous, Hispanic, and Asian families encounter unique challenges within the system that are not sufficiently addressed by current reform initiatives. Dettlaff et al. (2023) highlight that while reform efforts are initiated to tackle racial disparities, they inadequately capture the complex interplay of racial, cultural, and economic factors that distinctively impact these communities (Dettlaff et al., 2023). Failing to address Indigenous child removal as a function of settler colonialism, the settler state and society reinforces colonial narratives that hide the reality of Native lives and celebrate supposed settler benevolence (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). Dettlaff and Copeland (2023) further elucidate this oversight by detailing how the historical design of child welfare policies was primarily to maintain white supremacy, inadvertently sidelining the nuanced adversities faced by other ethnic groups. This has resulted in systemic practices that are not responsive to the specific cultural and familial contexts of Indigenous, Hispanic, and Asian families, which can vary significantly from those of Black and white families (Dettlaff & Copeland, 2023).
The work by Dettlaff (2022) argues for a more encompassing approach that recognizes and integrates the multifaceted identities and experiences of all families affected by the child welfare system. This would involve reforming the system in ways that are genuinely reflective of and responsive to the varied and intersectional needs of these communities, rather than applying a generalized framework that primarily addresses Black and white racial dynamics (Dettlaff, 2022). Moreover, Dettlaff (2024) points out the essential need for reforms to dismantle the foundational racial inequalities embedded within the system. Without addressing these core issues, reforms may continue to perpetuate inequities, particularly for those racial and ethnic groups that are less represented in the discourse surrounding child welfare (Dettlaff, 2024). It is imperative to recognize systemic processes harming Native families and also requires non-Native actors to recognize and acknowledge themselves as occupiers of Indigenous homelands, perpetuators of cultural genocide, and sustainers of settler colonial practices (Davis et al., 2016).
Abolishing the Child Welfare System
Abolition within the context of the child welfare system involves a complete dismantling of the current structures, which are deeply embedded in racially biased practices and systemic oppression. Dettlaff (2024) describes abolition not merely as the cessation of the system but as a transformative process that redefines societal engagement with families and communities, shifting from punitive actions to supportive and empowering frameworks (Dettlaff, 2024). Dettlaff (2022) highlights that the family policing system has historically perpetuated racial oppression, particularly against Black families, by maintaining their surveillance and control under the guise of welfare (Dettlaff, 2022). This system is not broken but operates exactly as designed—to control and oppress marginalized communities. Indigenous scholars agree that the child welfare system is a vehicle through which states monitor and punish parents and families who fail to conform to white hegemonic parenting standards (Edwards, 2016).
Dettlaff and Copeland (2023) critique the system’s foundational design, which is rooted in white supremacy, continuously perpetuating harm against Black children through disproportionate surveillance, investigation, and separation from their families. The authors argue for a radical shift toward abolishing this system, which inherently causes more harm than protection (Dettlaff & Copeland, 2023). Dettlaff et al. (2023) further emphasize the need for abolition by interrogating how the carceral nature of the child welfare system aligns with broader systemic incarceration practices that target racial minorities. The incarceration of Indigenous children in child welfare systems proliferates incarceration of Indigenous people as youth aging out of care are increasingly inhabiting carceral spaces throughout their lives (Kristjansson, 2024), transitioning from care facilities to the street (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). This phenomenon has been referred to as the revolving door of care by law enforcement officers and child service agencies alike; however, these very actors fail to recognize their own responsibility and culpability in how they expose Native children and youth to abuse and exploitation (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024).
Abolitionists propose the re-envisioning of societal supports that genuinely prioritize child and family welfare without coercion or surveillance (Dettlaff et al., 2023). Finally, Dettlaff et al. (2020) argue for the replacement of the current system with community-driven, empowering frameworks that ensure families have necessary resources without state interference. They advocate for the establishment of supportive services that are not only reactive but proactive in preventing the conditions leading to family disruptions (Dettlaff et al., 2020). Indigenous child welfare scholars posit the criticality of having Native-designed and led services to enhance cultural safety, safeguard cultural identity and kinship connections, family preservation through active prevention efforts, and ultimately reduce the overrepresentation of Native children in the child welfare system (Paki Paki et al., 2024).
Critiques of Abolishing the Child Welfare System
Critiques of the movement to abolish the child welfare system focus on several key concerns regarding the practicality and potential consequences of such a drastic measure. Berrick et al. (2022) argue that while abolition aims to address systemic injustices, completely dismantling the system could lead to a lack of necessary interventions for children who are genuinely at risk, thus removing a crucial safety net (Berrick et al., 2022). Garcia et al. (2024) discuss the potential risks associated with the absence of a structured system to manage cases of severe neglect or abuse. They express concern that without the child welfare system’s oversight, there could be an increase in unaddressed child maltreatment cases, potentially leading to worse outcomes for vulnerable children (Garcia et al., 2024). Neglect is the largest child welfare report category; however, it is important to note key differences in willful neglect compared with poverty. Willful neglect is the act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, however, the presence of poverty alone does not equate to a child being unsafe or unloved. The child welfare categorization of neglect is driven by poverty which has been created through structural factors over time such as the erosion of tribal sovereignty, poor quality reservations from forced displacement, and the expropriation of tribal lands and family separation (Edwards et al., 2023). Thus, Indigenous child welfare scholars argue that returning Native children to their communities is the first step in reducing disparities, not poverty (Crofoot & Harris, 2012) or reform. To combat poverty, Native Nations must be able to retain their most important cultural, spiritual, and economic resources—their children (Crofoot & Harris, 2012).
In addition, Barth et al. (2020) highlight the challenge of ensuring that the resources and community supports needed to replace the child welfare system are adequately established and sustained. They caution that the idealistic vision of community-led supports completely replacing formal interventions may overlook the complexity and variability of needs among affected families (Barth et al., 2020); however, Indigenous child welfare scholars remind us that models of community care have existed since time immemorial, prior to colonial contact. “We already kept our kids safe before settler colonialism; they’re not safe now” (Waubanascum & Sarche, 2023, p. 357). These funding disparities must be remedied for tribes to have power to build sustainable anti-poverty programs run by their own people, thus increasing the capacity to keep children in their homes.
Finally, Barth et al. (2022) raise questions about the feasibility of creating an entirely new framework that adequately protects children while avoiding the pitfalls of the current system. They suggest that without clear and feasible alternatives, the call for abolition might result in fragmented services that could fail to protect some of the most vulnerable children (Barth et al., 2022). Indigenous scholars have likewise noted the significant gap in knowledge of Indigenous informed or led programs and services, stating the question for how to strengthen child welfare with Native families is underresearched (Paki Paki et al., 2024). These critiques emphasize the need for careful consideration of the implications of abolition, suggesting that reform—focused on rectifying the existing system’s flaws while preserving its protective functions—may be a more viable and less risky approach.
Abolition and Intersectionality in the Child Welfare System
While the abolition of the child welfare system aims to address deep-seated injustices within established practices, a significant critique arises from its general nonresponsiveness to intersectionality, particularly concerning Indigenous, Hispanic, and Asian families. Much of the abolition discourse is framed around the experiences of Black and white families, which risks overlooking the unique cultural and familial structures of other groups. Garcia et al. (2024) emphasize that abolition advocates often focus predominantly on the disparities faced by Black children, potentially sidelining the complex issues faced by other minority groups. This oversight could result in the development of postabolition strategies that do not adequately address the needs of all vulnerable groups within diverse communities (Garcia et al., 2024).
From an Indigenous child welfare perspective, sovereignty is the missing ingredient to an intersectional abolitionist approach. Child welfare has not fully embraced sovereignty (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019). Sovereignty is defined as the supreme political authority, self-sufficient source of political power, the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating international affairs without foreign dictation (Siedschlaw, 2011). Tribal sovereignty is the inherent right of Native Nations to make decisions for their Nations and people without authority or interference from outside entities (Cobb, 2005). In their meta-synthesis, Paki Paki and colleagues (2024) found that nearly half of all included studies noted the centrality of self-determination in child welfare development and implementation, amplifying the need to honor tribal priorities and preferences across child welfare system design, delivery, policy-making, and planning. Social work must understand racial and political perspectives of Indian child welfare, and that sovereignty means tribes are independent nations within the United States, with our own rights and obligations to care for our own citizens (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019).
Furthermore, Berrick et al. (2022) discuss the importance of recognizing and incorporating the diverse needs and experiences of all families affected by the child welfare system. They argue that an effective abolition strategy must be comprehensive and inclusive, ensuring that new frameworks for supporting families do not replicate the oversights of the system they intend to replace (Berrick et al., 2022). Barth et al. (2022) also highlight the necessity of including intersectional perspectives in discussions about abolition. They note that without a thorough consideration of how different racial and ethnic groups are affected by systemic changes, abolition efforts might fail to create equitable outcomes for all children and families (Barth et al., 2022). Indigenous disproportionality has different roots than other racial/ethnic minority children due to the unique history and legal status of Native Nations (Bussey & Lucero, 2013) as racial classification is not continuous with political affiliation for Indigenous peoples (Edwards et al., 2023). While the movement to abolish the child welfare system is driven by a commendable desire to eliminate racial and systemic inequities, its current focus primarily on Black and white familial dynamics may not fully consider the varied experiences of Indigenous, Hispanic, and Asian families, thus failing to address the full spectrum of intersectionality within child welfare.
Abolitionist Reform
Abolitionist Reform in the Child Welfare System
Abolitionist reform, often termed “non-reformist reform,” seeks to dismantle rather than merely improve existing oppressive systems. Akbar (2022) argues that abolitionist reforms challenge foundational structures by advocating for changes that disrupt entrenched power dynamics and promote equitable power distributions (Akbar, 2022). Stump (2021) emphasizes that these reforms aim for significant systemic change and are crucial for radical shifts in institutional roles (Stump, 2021). Morris (2023) highlights that abolitionist reforms are part of a broader strategy to dismantle oppressive systems, focusing on community needs and radical objectives (Morris, 2023). Murray et al. (2023) note the importance of adhering to justice and equality in these reforms, challenging the constraints of existing systems (Murray et al., 2023). In the child welfare system, abolitionist reform suggests profound systemic changes. Rasmussen and Kim (2024) describe it as constructing supportive structures that fundamentally alter social welfare, aiming to dismantle systems that oppress and marginalize while building community-based solutions (Rasmussen & Kim, 2024). Cho et al. (2023) stress the importance of addressing systemic biases such as anti-Black racism within the system, advocating for policies that support family integrity and community empowerment (Cho et al., 2023). Galper (1973) discusses the need for transformative social work practices that challenge and change the conditions perpetuating injustice within child welfare (Galper, 1973). These perspectives collectively advocate for abolitionist reform as a strategy to not only dismantle oppressive systems but also to establish liberatory practices that prioritize the wellbeing and empowerment of communities impacted by child welfare.
The Indian Child Welfare Act is a gold standard (Waubanascum & Sarche, 2023) example of a non-reformist reform. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed in 1978 to prevent the breakup of Native families and preserve the child’s connection to their family, tribe, and culture (Public Law 95-608, 1978). There are four key ICWA provisions: (a) jurisdiction, (b) notification and intervention, (c) placement preferences, and (d) active efforts (Edwards et al., 2023). ICWA holds that tribal courts have jurisdiction over their own children and all possible measures must be taken to allow kids to stay with their family, extended family, or people within their reservation; if no other options are available, children can then be adopted by families with Native heritage (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019). ICWA requires higher standards for the removal of Native children, requires public child welfare to engage in active efforts to prevent removal and support reunification, and give first consideration to family members and other tribal members when out of home placement is required (PL 95-608).
The Indican Child Welfare Act has been effective in reducing disparities for Native children. Several published studies demonstrate CPS reducing disproportionality through a series of policy changes and strengths-based trainings, evidencing gains possible through increased ICWA implementation (Bussey & Lucero, 2013). Edwards and colleagues (2023) demonstrate evidence that ICWA is effective in decreasing out of home placements when coupled with tribal-state agreements that honor the role of tribes in ICWA cases and policy and practices that prioritize collaboration across state and tribal systems, incorporating cultural competency training, and providing extra support, including concrete goods for basic needs, financial, and legal supports (Day et al., 2024). National ICWA compliance data shows that Native youth have higher rates of kinship placements but remain just as likely to experience pre-adoptive placement and are less likely to reunify with their family when compared with white children (Edwards et al., 2023).
ICWA’s focus on tribal family preservation is linked to tribal sovereignty and reparative justice, serving as early inspiration for family preservation efforts that emphasize healing over punishment (Bussey & Lucero, 2013). This non-reformist reform attenuates focus toward tribal sovereignty over the child welfare system as it currently stands. ICWA is grounded in the nation-to-nation relationship between the United States and Native Nations, similar to the body of law related to international child welfare issues (Crofoot & Harris, 2012). As a result, ICWA is part of a broader strategy of Native Nations to reclaim traditional ways of being and caring for our kin; however, ICWA is embedded within the current colonial structures of the U.S. government and relies heavily on federal and state court compliance. Studies have found that as ICWA compliance decreases, foster care placement increases (Crofoot & Harris, 2012; Limb et al., 2004; Willis et al., 1992). There is a direct tie between court or agency respect for federal and state ICWA laws and their understanding of tribal sovereignty, creating creative ways to find exception to follow ICWA provisions, stating that some youths are “not involved in Indian culture” as a means to not follow federal law (Siedschlaw, 2011). Furthermore, ICWA does not solve issues of anti-Native racism as the legislative history of ICWA demonstrates examples of state courts employing white middle-class values as universal truths to assess the fitness of Native parents (Siedschlaw, 2011).
A major barrier for tribal child welfare is a lack of available funding (Crofoot & Harris, 2012). Federal funding is included in the ICWA to develop and operate child welfare systems but does not include enough to fund even 25% of the needs of Native Nations (Crofoot & Harris, 2012). Furthermore, funded programs get year-to-year grants, keeping tribal child welfare programs in precarious positions, facing great disruption to staff and services indefinitely. Even Title IV-B child welfare services provide less than US$10,000 per fiscal year to only 150 tribal governments out of the more than 500 that have direct access to IV-B, with at least half of these receiving less than US$5,000 a year; the remaining tribes are completely dependent upon states to do pass through if it happens at all. Ultimately, the bare minimum to establish a child abuse and neglect prevention program in any tribal community was approximately US$80,000 per year in 2012 (Crofoot & Harris, 2012), which equates to about US$109,863 in 2024. In reality, tribes must subsidize at least one dedicated full-time employee with benefits and access to training to adequately prepare them for their role. Overall, the federal government has consistently demonstrated the financial incentive for removing Native children; where is the money going if not to Native Nations themselves? Ultimately, despite the critical importance of ICWA, the legislation itself has not ended the persistent genocidal removal of Indigenous children from their families (Edwards et al., 2023) and demonstrates shortcomings of abolitionist reform.
Critiques of Abolitionist Reform in the Child Welfare System
Reform critics of abolitionist reform might argue that such radical changes to the child welfare system are unrealistic and impractical. Settler states are certainly not keen to cede power to Native Nations. Reformists may also contend that completely dismantling and reimagining the system could lead to significant gaps in service, putting vulnerable children at risk during the transition. Reformists could also suggest that abolitionist approaches underestimate the complexity of the issues at hand, such as legal and safety concerns that require state intervention. Furthermore, they might believe that focusing on community-based alternatives overlooks the need for standardized protective measures that only a centralized system can provide. In addition, reformists may view abolitionist reforms as too idealistic, lacking concrete strategies for implementation within the existing political and economic constraints. Abolitionists might critique abolitionist reforms for potentially perpetuating the very systems they aim to dismantle by engaging too closely with existing structures. They could argue that even well-intentioned reforms within the system may inadvertently reinforce state control and surveillance mechanisms under the guise of improvement, rather than completely eliminating them. There is a similar concern for tribal child welfare programs to become an extension of county systems and tribes are forced into dependence on child welfare system intervention (Waubanascum & Sarche, 2023). Tribes can inadvertently contribute to ongoing assimilation and colonialism of our people by imposition of policies and practices created by colonial lawmakers and enforced by settler service providers (Waubanascum & Sarche, 2023).
Abolitionists may also be skeptical about the possibility of genuine transformation through reforms that are implemented within the same political and bureaucratic frameworks responsible for systemic oppressions. In addition, they could express concerns that these reforms do not go far enough in addressing root causes like racial and economic inequalities, instead offering piecemeal changes that fail to radically alter or replace the fundamental power dynamics and institutional biases inherent in the child welfare system. These concerns are similarly reflected in tribal child welfare, warning that increasing culturally appropriate services without the systemic respect for self-determination ultimately results in contemporary colonial discrimination (Blackstock et al., 2020).
Abolitionist Reform and Intersectionality in the Child Welfare System
Abolitionist reform in the child welfare system, viewed through an intersectional lens, presents a transformative vision aimed at dismantling systemic inequalities that disproportionately impact marginalized communities. By recognizing the profound effects of race, ethnicity, and culture on interactions with the child welfare system, such reforms seek to disassemble the existing structures that target and often harm families of color. Proposals include creating a genuinely supportive and nonpunitive child welfare system that replaces oppressive practices with models that resonate with the specific cultural and community needs of diverse families. This approach necessitates a thorough examination and restructuring of the foundational practices of the child welfare system, which are typically based on white, middle-class norms and do not reflect the varied realities of diverse family structures and values. By integrating intersectional awareness, abolitionist reforms advocate for policies that empower families and promote community-based support systems, ensuring that interventions are just, culturally competent, and address broader structural inequalities like poverty, health care disparities, and unsafe housing. These reforms aim to enhance the wellbeing of all families, reducing the dependency on state interventions. However, implementing such radical changes poses significant challenges. Transitioning from deeply rooted systems to new frameworks is complex and can create service gaps, risking the safety of vulnerable children. These reforms require substantial resources, and resistance from those invested in the status quo could hinder progress. Moreover, designing interventions that meet the diverse needs of all families requires a nuanced understanding and ongoing adjustments. Overall, embracing abolitionist reform with an intersectional approach could radically rethink child welfare service provision, aiming to establish a system that not only includes but actively opposes the systemic inequalities that frequently bring families into the child welfare system. This vision goes beyond merely removing harmful elements, striving instead to build a system grounded in justice, respect, and genuine support for all families.
Reform, Abolition, or Abolitionist Reform?
This section delves into the transformative potential of abolitionist reform within the child welfare system, examining its implications from three perspectives: for reformists, who seek effective changes within the system; for abolitionists, who advocate for a complete overhaul; and in the context of the ongoing debate between reform and total abolition. Each viewpoint offers a unique insight into how radical changes could reshape the future of child welfare.
Implications of Abolitionist Reform for Reformists
Abolitionist reform could significantly resonate with reformists in the child welfare system by offering a profound critique and alternative to current reform efforts that often only scratch the surface of deep-seated systemic issues. Reformists, who traditionally focus on evidence-based interventions to tackle racial and ethnic disparities, might find the abolitionist perspective particularly compelling because it pushes for not just modification but a total overhaul of the system. This shift aligns with the goals of reformists who seek effective and just solutions but often find the scope of traditional reforms too limited. Abolitionist reform directly addresses the foundational critiques highlighted by scholars like Barth et al. (2020) and Berrick et al. (2022), who advocate for dismantling misconceptions through culturally sensitive, evidence-based practices. Abolitionists extend this approach by proposing the complete dismantling of the “family policing system,” which they argue inherently perpetuates racial oppression and economic disparity. This radical restructuring proposes replacing punitive mechanisms with supportive, community-focused alternatives that not only intervene in crisis but actively work to prevent these crises by addressing broader socioeconomic factors. For example, Dettlaff’s (2022, 2023, 2024) extensive critiques of the racial biases embedded within the system and its failure to enact meaningful change resonate with the abolitionist call for a thorough transformation. This approach suggests that merely adjusting policies without addressing the systemic roots of oppression will continue to fail the families it intends to support. Overall, abolitionist reform could bridge the gap between the aspirations of reformists and the necessity for more radical changes, offering a framework that not only critiques but also reimagines the child welfare system in a fundamentally just and equitable way. This could galvanize reformists who are disillusioned with incremental changes, uniting them under a more transformative agenda that aims to eradicate systemic inequities and rebuild the system from the ground up.
Implications of Abolitionist Reform for Abolitionists
Abolitionist reform in the child welfare system can be especially compelling to abolitionists who are typically critical of reform approaches that they see as too incremental or surface-level. However, the concept of abolitionist reform transcends traditional reform by aiming for a radical reconfiguration of existing systems rather than mere improvements. This approach seeks to address the foundational flaws identified by reformists but goes further by proposing a complete dismantling of the current structures. Dettlaff (2024) emphasizes that abolition is not just about cessation but about transformation—redefining how society engages with families, moving away from punitive actions to supportive and empowering frameworks. This perspective can appeal to abolitionists because it aligns with their desire for deep structural changes rather than temporary fixes. It also resonates with reformists by building on the evidence-based critiques they support, such as addressing racial and ethnic disparities and the overrepresentation of minority children in the system. Furthermore, abolitionist reform suggests replacing the “family policing system” with mechanisms that empower rather than control. This shift toward community-driven supports and the provision of resources to prevent family disruptions aligns with both abolitionist goals and reformist objectives for more effective and humane practices (Dettlaff et al., 2020). By engaging with reform, abolitionist reform brings into conversation the possibilities of radically rethinking child welfare. It suggests that we can build a system that genuinely supports families without surveillance and coercion. By engaging with reform, abolitionist reform brings into conversation the possibilities of radically rethinking child welfare. It suggests that we can build a system that genuinely supports families without surveillance and coercion, a vision that could unify both reformists and abolitionists under the shared goal of creating a system rooted in justice and support rather than punishment and oppression. This intersection of ideas provides a powerful framework for advocating profound changes that address both immediate and systemic issues in child welfare.
Implications of Abolitionist Reform for the Reform Versus Abolition Debate
Abolitionist reform in the child welfare system reshapes the traditional debate between reform and abolition by advocating for transformative changes that not merely adjust but fundamentally overhaul the existing system. This approach challenges the efficacy of incremental reforms that often fail to address the systemic injustices and biases embedded within the child welfare system, such as racial disparities and the oversurveillance and penalization of marginalized communities. Abolitionist reforms aim to dismantle the existing punitive and surveillance-focused frameworks of child welfare and replace them with community-centered, supportive services that empower rather than penalize families. This radical approach suggests moving away from state-controlled interventions that often lead to the separation of children from their families, toward a model that strengthens familial bonds and community supports, ensuring children’s safety and well-being within their own homes and communities. In this context, abolitionist reform reframes the debate by positing that true transformation in child welfare cannot occur through mere surface-level changes. Instead, it requires a complete rethinking and restructuring of the system to eliminate its oppressive functions and reorient its goals toward genuine child and family support. This means investing in preventive and supportive services like community-based parenting programs, economic supports for low-income families, and culturally competent care systems that address the specific needs of diverse communities. By focusing on these transformative goals, abolitionist reform moves the conversation beyond whether to reform or abolish. It suggests a phased approach where each reformative step dismantles parts of the oppressive system while simultaneously building equitable structures, leading toward the ultimate goal of abolition. This integrated approach ensures that the shift toward abolition is both practical and sustainable, minimizing disruption to the current system while maximizing benefits to children and families.
Implications for Practice
Uncovering and recognizing ongoing coloniality is vital to the pursuit to defending sovereignty, protecting ICWA, and revitalizing Indigenous lifeways (Waubanascum & Sarche, 2023) as child welfare agencies continually fail to engage in anti-colonial work that could uproot these deeply colonial biases operating within their institutions (Roxburgh & Sinclair, 2024). Practitioners and policy makers should take steps to minimize the involvement of settler state child welfare systems in the lives of Indigenous children and families (Edwards et al., 2023). Child welfare actors should work closely with tribal governments to enhance protections for tribal sovereignty for Indigenous children who come into contact with CPS and provide adequate and unconditional support for Native Nations to operate independent system for families that respect and reinforce traditional values and cultures (Edwards et al., 2023).
To reduce Indigenous child welfare disproportionality, scholars recommend both family level intervention and systems-level intervention (Caringi & Lawson, 2014; Landers & Danes, 2016)—our non-reformist reforms. Child protective services must possess a basic knowledge of Native culture and family life to understand historic and contemporary factors that increase the likelihood of CPS contact (Weaver, 2003). Furthermore, mandated reporters could receive training to differentiate between willful neglect and poverty, and an overall training on how to use 211 and similar helpline systems to support families outside of referring to CPS. Indigenous scholars note that CSWE adding “tribal sovereign status” to the 2015 EPAS is a step in the right direction (Thibeault & Spencer, 2019); however, it remains to be seen how this will impact social work education and subsequent practice. Likewise, other professions such as criminal justice and psychology are often employed by CPS, what can those professions do in their training to account for bias and racism in decision-making? Developing systems-level protocols to address the early identification of Indigenous children to trigger timely tribal notification and support ICWA placement preferences (Caringi & Lawson, 2014). Agencies can ask, “Is our departmental policy and practice in alignment with ICWA’s intended purpose to prevent the breakup of the Indian family?” (Bussey & Lucero, 2013, p. 400). For help identifying an ICWA expert see the National Tribal Child Welfare Center for Innovation and Advancement or the local Children’s Bureau. We must move beyond mere ICWA compliance and move toward understanding and expanding understandings of cultural perspectives of parenting and the role of children in tribal communities; identify resources and strengths of urban Native communities and the healthy expression of Native values in family functioning; and finally, we must know how to locate and partner with Native or culturally responsive and community-based providers (Bussey & Lucero, 2013). Indigenous relative caregivers with lived experience in the child welfare system have expressed their desire for a decolonized child welfare system, “I’m definitely here for abolition of child welfare. We have and have had our own system, not child welfare, but our own system” (Waubanascum & Sarche, 2023, p. 357).
Footnotes
Disposition editor: Cristina Mogro-Wilson
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
