Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Child Maltreat. 2022 Oct 29;28(4):599–607. doi: 10.1177/10775595221134689

Factors Associated with Child Removal Among American Indian and Alaska Native People in an Alcohol Intervention Study

Abram J Lyons 1,2,3, Katherine A Hirchak 1,2, Gordon Kordas 1,2, Jalene L Herron 4,5, Kelley Jansen 6, Karl C Alcover 7, Dustin Bergerson 6, Jaedon P Avey 6, Jennifer Shaw 6, John Roll 1,2, Dedra Buchwald 1,8, Michael G McDonell 1,2,8; HONOR Study Team
PMCID: PMC10499114  NIHMSID: NIHMS1926941  PMID: 36314509

Abstract

This study was a secondary data analysis of factors associated with alcohol-related child removal among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults enrolled in a clinical trial of an alcohol intervention. Among 326 parent participants, 40% reported ever having a child removed from their care in part because of the parent’s alcohol use, defined here as alcohol-related child removal. Seventy-five percent of parents reported at least one separation during their own childhood (M = 1.3, SD = 1.0). In a multivariable analysis, alcohol-related child removal was associated with parental boarding school attendance. No relationship was found between alcohol-related child removal and alcohol intervention outcomes. Results may provide evidence of multigenerational child removal impacts of boarding schools on AI/AN adults receiving an alcohol use disorder intervention. Assessment of parental history of child removal by practitioners, strategies to prevent alcohol-related separation and to support reunification should be integrated into addiction treatment in AI/AN communities.

Keywords: cultural/ethnic issues, ethnic minority populations, treatment, trauma, parents/adults

Introduction

American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults are less likely than Non-Hispanic Whites to use alcohol in their lifetime, equally as likely to have had five or more drinks on one occasion in the past month, and more likely to have a diagnosis related to alcohol dependence (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2018; Cunningham et al., 2016; Grant et al., 2015). AI/AN communities experience high rates of alcohol-related negative consequences and child out-of-home placements compared to Non-Hispanic White communities (Baldwin et al., 2000; Barlow et al., 2012; Carter, 2011; Delker et al., 2016; Grinnell Davis et al., 2022).

Previous research among the general population has indicated that parental alcohol and other substance use increases the risk that a child will be removed from their parent’s care (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2014; English et al., 2015; Fusco, 2015; Myhra, 2011; Myhra & Wieling, 2014; Ondersma, 2002). Factors associated with child removal include being of a lower socio-economic status, lacking social supports, and having a parental history of early life interpersonal trauma, such as physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse (Cohen et al., 2008; English et al., 2015; Fusco, 2015; Lindsey, 1991; Thieman & Dail, 1997). Furthermore, a history of previous out-of-home placements and parental separation in their own childhood has been linked to families’ prolonged involvement in the child welfare system (Buisman et al., 2020; English et al., 2015; Foster et al., 2015; Marshall et al., 2011; Mertz & Andersen, 2017; Thieman & Dail, 1997; Thornberry et al., 2013).

Racial and ethnic minority children have disproportionately higher rates of out-of-home placements than Non-Hispanic Whites (Puzzanchera et al., 2022; The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2022). In 2018, AI/AN children were 2.6 times more likely to experience a foster care placement than the general population (National Indian Child Welfare Association, 2019; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2020). While the U.S. AI/AN child population was 1.1% in 2020 they comprised 2.6% of the child population in an out-of-home placement (Puzzanchera et al., 2022; The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2022). Factors for child removal among AI/AN families are similar to the general population (Carter, 2009a; 2009b; 2010; 2011; Fox, 2004; Galos, 2017; Lujan et al., 1989). However, AI/AN communities are affected by historical losses and traumas that are a consequence of racist and colonialist policies, such as a history of government boarding schools that prohibited Native languages and culture and indoctrinated children into Euro-American practices and values (Beardall & Edwards, 2021; Crofoot & Harris, 2012; Maxwell, 2014; Running Bear et al., 2018; Whitbeck et al., 2004). Assimilationist policies continued into the 1970s and included widespread adoption of AI/AN children into non-Native families (Crofoot & Harris, 2012; Evans-Campbell & Campbell, 2011; Jacobs, 2013). The underlying structures that gave rise to these policies remain largely unchanged, as indicated by the disproportionately high number of AI/AN children removed from their parents’ care compared to non-Hispanic Whites (National Indian Child Welfare Association, 2019; Puzzanchera et al., 2022; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2020). The removal of AI/AN children from AI/AN communities disrupts both the affected families, as well as intergenerational transmission of cultural knowledge, values, and practices. While expanding the legacy of historical trauma, these experiences also increase the likelihood of these individuals developing negative health outcomes, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorders (Bensen, 2001; Brave Heart et al., 2011; Evans-Campbell, 2008; Evans-Campbell et al., 2012; Gone et al., 2019; Haag, 2013).

Despite the history of disruption, family is central to many AI/AN peoples, who comprise 574 sovereign Nations with diverse cultures and societies (Getches et al., 1998; National Conference of State Legislatures, 2020; Red Horse, 1980). Efforts by Tribal leaders and AI/AN advocates to reinforce sovereignty by preserving AI/AN families resulted in the passing of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; Fletcher, 2009). The ICWA mandates that states actively support AI/AN parents and prioritize out-of-home placements, when necessary, to AI/AN homes that reflect the family’s unique cultural values to maintain the child’s connection to their culture, family, and community (P.L. 95–608).

The goal of this secondary data analysis was to describe the prevalence and associations of 326 AI/AN adult participants enrolled in a multisite randomized clinical trial of a culturally-tailored contingency management intervention for alcohol dependence (McDonell et al., 2021) who reported ever having a child removed from their care, in part, because of their alcohol use (our definition of alcohol-related child removal—our primary outcome). Consistent with the literature, we hypothesized that alcohol-related child removal would be associated with the following factors: the participant’s own experience with parental separation when they were children (our definition of parental separation in childhood), higher levels of historical loss and trauma, and early life experiences with interpersonal trauma.

Materials and Methods

Study Design

This secondary analysis examines data from a multisite randomized trial of a contingency management intervention for AI/AN adults who met criteria for alcohol dependence (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Contingency management is a type of behavioral treatment in which individuals are ‘reinforced’, or rewarded, for evidence of positive behavioral change, and it is highly effective for the treatment of substance use and related disorders (Benishek et al., 2014; Petry, 2011). In this study, participants who received contingency management were rewarded when a biospecimen sample verifiably indicated their abstinence from alcohol. The study took place in three separate AI/AN communities located in the Pacific Northwest, Northern Plains, and Alaska. After under-going a baseline interview, participants completed a four-week pre-randomization observation period where they received rewards for providing alcohol urine samples twice a week. Participants were then randomized to receive 12 weeks of treatment-as-usual and either rewards for submitting alcohol-negative urine samples (contingency management; treatment condition) or rewards for submitting urine samples only (no requirement of alcohol negative results; control condition; McDonell et al., 2016). Rewards—the items for which participants could “draw” for abstinence (CM arm) or attending study visits only (control arm) were tailored to each community. For more detailed information about the cultural adaptation, study design, and study outcomes, see Hirchak et al. (2018) and McDonell et al. (2016; 2021).

Participant Sample

Participants were recruited from October 2014 to February 2019 using flyers, in-person recruitment events, referrals from behavioral health providers, and ads on the radio and social media. Baseline data was collected from 400 AI/AN adults who met the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview criteria for alcohol dependence (Lecrubier et al., 1997). Of the larger study sample, 326 (81.5%) participants with children were included in the current analytic sample after excluding those who indicated they did not have children (n = 60) or declined to indicate whether or not they had a child (n = 14). All participants provided written informed consent. The Washington State University Institutional Review Board (IRB), Rocky Mountain Tribal IRB, and Alaska Area IRB, as well as local Tribal authorities, approved the study procedures.

Instruments and procedures

Outcome Variable.

Alcohol-related child removal was self-reported. The variable was assessed with a single question only gathered at baseline asking, “Have your kids ever been removed from your care, in part, because of your alcohol use?” Participants selected from four choices: “yes,” “no,” “N/A,” and “decline to answer.” Those who answered “N/A” or “decline to answer” were excluded from the analysis.

Other Variables.

We explored nine hypothesized independent variables, collected at baseline and hypothsized to and with a theories be associated with alcohol-related child removal, as follows:

Parental Separation in Childhood.

The Early Life and Chronic Stress Scale (Jiang et al., 2008) was used to explore participants’ exposure to parental separation in childhood and interpersonal trauma before the age of 18. This scale’s parental separation in childhood domain has four binary yes/no variables that include whether the participant lived with others because of problems in the family, whether they went to boarding/reform school, whether they had been in foster care, and whether they had been adopted. The domain was analyzed as separate binary parental separation in childhood individual event types.

Interpersonal Trauma.

The Early Life and Chronic Stress Scale also contains an interpersonal trauma domain with six questions. This domain was converted into a binary variable consistent with how the parental separation in childhood domain was converted (Jiang et al., 2008).

Historical Loss and Trauma.

The Historical Loss and Trauma Scale (Whitbeck et al., 2004) has two domains to assess the frequency of thoughts and feelings related to historical loss and historical trauma, each containing 12 questions. A Likert scale was used for each domain, which was then converted to a binary response for each question. Consistent with published scoring of the measure, answers were coded “1” if they were greater than the median response, and “0” if they were equal to or less than the median response within the present study sample. All questions were added together to create a continuous composite score from 0 to 12 for both domains (Whitbeck et al., 2004). A higher historical loss score indicates more frequent contemplation of traumatic historical events that happened in their community. A higher historical trauma score indicates a higher level of negative emotional responses to those losses.

Demographic Factors.

Parent’s age, sex, and education were included as control variables to increase the precision of our estimates (Table 1). Age in years was analyzed as a continuous variable. Biological sex was analyzed categorically as male or female. High school equivalent education was operationalized categorically as “12 or more years” or “less than 12 years.”

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of the Total Sample as well as Participants Who Have and Have Not Had an Alcohol-Related Child Removal at Baseline.symbol a,b

Total Sample (N = 326) Alcohol-Related Child Removal (n = 132) No Alcohol-Related Child Removal (n = 194)
Total participants 40.5 59.5
Age 42.4(11.0) 41.2(10.3) 43.3(11.3)
Female sex 50.0 65.9 39.2
Education (≥12 years) 81.2 74.2 86.0
The early life and chronic stress scale
 Parental separation in childhood, by event type
  Lived with others because of problems in the family 63.3 68.2 59.9
  Attended boarding school 28.0 32.6 24.9
  Were in foster care 27.1 28.0 26.4
  Were adopted 9.2 13.6 6.2
  Interpersonal trauma 73.5 26.7 26.4
Historical loss and trauma measures (0 to 12)
 Historical loss 5.3(4.1) 6(4.3) 4.8(3.9)
 Historical trauma 4.4(3.6) 4.1(3.6) 4.6(3.7)
Ethyl glucuronide negative (EtG<150 ng/mL) 57.1 41.6symbol c 58.4symbol d
Open in a new tab
a

All values indicate %/Mean(SD). “%” represents percent of “yes” answers out of total responses unless otherwise stated.

b

No row was missing more than 5 participants, unless otherwise noted.

c

Sample includes 77 participants.

d

Sample includes 108 participants.

Intervention Outcomes.

The primary outcome of the intervention study was urine alcohol biomarker ethyl glucuronide (EtG) level. Alcohol abstinence was defined as EtG<150 ng/mL, a threshold that can detect alcohol use for two to five days depending on the level of alcohol consumed and individual factors (Lowe et al., 2015; McDonell et al., 2015; 2017). Urine samples were collected twice a week for 12 weeks to compare the effect of contingency management intervention on urine EtG levels between the treatment and control groups.

Data analysis

We calculated means and standard deviations for continuous variables as well as percentages and frequencies for categorical variables. Unadjusted odds ratios of all nine hypothesized independent variables were estimated via logistic regression as an initial phase of our analysis. The analysis was conducted to the raw associations between the nine independent and the outcome variable. We modeled each of the variables separately with the outcome of alcohol-related child removal. We then examined the associations using multivariable logistic regression models to investigate the marginal effects of historical loss and trauma, early life and chronic stress, history of interpersonal trauma, and types of parental separation, with the outcome, controlling for demographic factors (age, sex, and education). A complete case analysis was conducted because missingness was low (n = 14; 4.1%) for the analytic sample.

We used a mixed effects logistic regression to determine whether alcohol-related child removal was associated with participant alcohol use over the 12-week intervention period (the primary clinical trial outcome). The mixed effects model included an indicator of alcohol-related child removal, intervention group, study visits over time, age at baseline, sex, site, EtG baseline fixed effects, and a random intercept for participant. Statistical significance was determined at the α = 0.05 level. STATA 16.0 was used to conduct all analyses (StataCorp, 2019).

Results

Of the 326 participants, 40.5% (n = 132) met criteria for alcohol-related child removal (i.e., participant had a child removed from their care due, in part, to alcohol use; Table 1). These individuals were predominantly female (65.9%). Seventy-four percent of the sample had 12 or more years of education. In the total sample, 74.5% were separated from their parents as children (i.e., parental separation in childhood) at least once (M = 1.3, SD = 1.0). In the subsample of participants who had a child removed from their care, approximately 80.0% experienced their own parental separation in childhood. In the subsample of parents who had not had a child removed from their care, 71.5% had personally experienced a separation from their parents. Seventeen percent of the overall sample experienced neither a child being removed from their care nor their own parental separation in childhood.

In the unadjusted associations, participants who were adopted had higher odds of being separated from their child (OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.1,5.1; p = .03). Those who reported higher levels of reflection on historical loss also had greater odds of an alcohol-related child removal (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 1.0.1.1; p = .02). All other independent variables did not have statistically significant, unadjusted associations.

In our adjusted multivariable model, those participants who reported attending a boarding school as children were 93% more likely (OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.1.3.4; p = .03) to have experienced removal of a child from their care as an adult, compared with those who did not attend a boarding school. Other associations in two control variables (i.e., parent sex and education level) were significant as described in Table 2.

Table 2.

Associations Between Predictors and Alcohol-Related Child Removal. (n = 319)a.

Adjusted OR [95% CI]
Parental separation in childhood, by event type
 Lived with others because of problems in the family 1.32[0.74.2.36]
 Attended boarding school 1.93[1.10,3.38] *
 Were in foster care 0.85[0.46.1.55]
 Were adopted 2.24[0.94.5.33]
Interpersonal trauma 0.68[0.38.1.24]
Historical loss and trauma measures
 Historical loss 1.05[0.98.1.13]
 Historical trauma 1.00[0.92.1.08]
Female sex 3.32[2.02,5.47] ***
Age 0.98[0.95.1.00]
Education (≥ 12 years) 0.52[0.30,0.96] *
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.05,

***

p ≤ 0.001.

a

No row was missing more than 1 participant.

After fitting a logistic mixed effects model, participants who had a child removed from their care did not have a statistically significant different response to treatment (odds of submitting an alcohol negative urine test), relative to those who did not have their child separated from their care (OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 0.5.2.9; p = .68; Supplemental Table 1).

Discussion

In this sample of 326 AI/AN adults enrolled in a clinical intervention study for alcohol use, nearly 41% of participants reported ever having a child removed from their care due, in part, to alcohol use. In addition, 75% of participants in the study reported being separated from their parents as children. The adjusted multivariable model showed alcohol-related child removal was more likely if participants had attended a boarding school. These findings substantiate the intergenerational impact of boarding schools on AI/AN families, building on prior research that demonstrated boarding school effects on future mental and physical health, familial relationships, parenting behaviors, and alcohol and substance use (Colmant, 2000; Evans-Campbell et al., 2012; Running Bear et al., 2018; Zephier Olson & Dombrowski, 2020). Congruent with other studies, participants who were male and had less than 12 years of education had a higher likelihood of child removed from their care in the primary model (Crawford & Bradley, 2016; Hunter & Flores, 2021). There was no relationship between having a child removed from the participant and the effectiveness of the contingency management intervention on alcohol abstinence.

This study adds to the relatively small body of literature examining the risk factors associated with AI/AN child removal and is unique for its focus on examining those variables in alcohol use disorder treatment (Carter, 2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2011; Grinnell Davis et al., 2022; Lujan et al., 1989). Addressing these risk factors requires efforts on multiple levels. Practitioners may consider assessing the parent’s history of out-of-home placement types (e.g., attending a boarding school) to understand current or future child welfare involvement. Moreover, the parent’s service providers and their child’s wellbeing team may also consider a Systems of Care approach that requires intensive collaboration between each other, the parent, and the parent’s support network to achieve a reunification permanency plan (Cook & Kilmer, 2010; Simpson et al., 2001; Stroul & Friedman, 1986; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). Evidence suggests that a Systems of Care approach has had positive outcomes among minoritized families, including geographically distinct AI/AN communities (Cross et al., 2000; Dettlaff & Rycraft, 2022; Nebelkopf & King, 2003). Additionally, the inclusion of family supports and resources, such as mental health services, parenting skills, and other evidence-based interventions, should be integrated into alcohol use treatment programs in AI/AN communities.

While beyond the scope of this study, addressing social determinants of health (e.g., poverty, discrimination) that underlie disproportionately high levels of alcohol use disorder and child removal are also necessary through social advocacy. The American Public Health Association recently declared structural racism as a public health concern (American Public Health Association, 2020). This declaration has implications for the child welfare system which maintains structures that disproportionality effect minority families, particularly AI/AN people (Crofoot & Harris, 2012; Dettlaff et al., 2011; Donald et al., 2003; Fox, 2004).

There are limitations to our research that should be noted. Although the research included a diverse sample of AI/AN adults from urban and rural settings, we may not be able to generalize our findings to other Tribal communities. In addition to common limitations of cross-sectional research, the outcome was based upon a single lifetime binary question of whether the participant ever had a child removed from their care, restricting the amount of information available for a holistic understanding apart from alcohol use. The participant’s self-reported answers to the outcome question may be another limitation to the outcome variable. The participant’s child removal experience may reflect the parent’s perception of the incident and not the reason documented by the child welfare administration. In addition, our study did not control for some potential unmeasured confounding variables such as mental health or non-problematic substance use. Strengths of our study include three geographically and culturally diverse study sites, the use of measures that were validated among AI/AN communities, our assessment of cultural and historical domains that may impact AI/AN alcohol-related child removal, and our large sample (N = 326) of AI/AN parents seeking alcohol treatment. Future research should focus on studying the intergenerational out-of-home placements among AI/AN adults with alcohol use disorder and seek to develop novel methods for keeping AI/AN families together.

Supplementary Material

Supplement 1

Acknowledgments

We have an overwhelming amount of gratitude for communities who partnered with us on the HONOR study and the participants that made this project possible.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this study was provided by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research at the National Institutes of Health (R01 AA022070, PIs: McDonell, Buchwald). The dissemination of study results was also supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (P60 AA024334, PI: Buchwald; T32 AA018108, PI: McCrady; K01 AA028831-01, PI: Hirchak, S06 GM127911, PI: Ferucci) and by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences Native American Research Centers for Health (S06 GM123545, PI: Hiratsuka, S06 GM127911, PI: Ferucci, 5S06 GM142122, PI: Dillard). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Footnotes

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.

Disclaimer

The views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of any participating Tribe or partnering organization. The opinions and assertions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences or the Department of Defense.”

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association. [Google Scholar]
  2. American Public Health Association (2020). Structural racism is a public health crisis: Impact on the black community (policy LB20-04). and American Public Health Association, https://apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2021/01/13/structural-racism-is-a-public-health-crisis [Google Scholar]
  3. Baldwin JA, Fenaughty AM, Stevens SJ, & Maxwell CJC (2000). Alcohol as a risk factor for HIV transmission among American Indian and Alaska Native drug users. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 9(1), 1–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barlow A, Tingey L, Cwik M, Goklish N, Larzelere-Hinton F, Lee A, Suttle R, Mullany B, & Walkup JT (2012). Understanding the relationship between substance use and self-injury in American Indian youth. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 38(5), 403–408. 10.3109/00952990.2012.696757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Beardall TR, & Edwards F (2021). Abolition, settler colonialism, and the persistent threat of Indian child welfare. Columbia Journal of Race and Law, 11(3), 533–574 10.52214/cjrl.v11i3.8744 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Benishek LA, Dugosh KL, Kirby KC, Matejkowski J, Clements NT, Seymour BL, & Festinger DS (2014). Prize-based contingency management for the treatment of substance abusers: A meta-analysis. Addiction, 109(9), 1426–1436. 10.1111/add.12589 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bensen R (2001). Children of the dragonfly: Native American voices on child custody and education. University of Arizona Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brave Heart MYH, Chase J, Elkins J, & Altschul DB (2011). Histoical trauma among Indigenous peoples of the Americas: Concepts, research, and clinical considerations. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 43(4), 282–290. 10.1080/02791072.2011.628913 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Buisman RSM, Pittner K, Tollenaar MS, Lindenberg J, van den Berg LJM, Compier-de Block LHCG, van Ginkel JR, Alink LRA, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Elzinga BM, & van IJzendoorn MH (2020). Intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment using a multi-informant multi-generation family design. PLOS ONE, 15(3), Article e0225839. 10.1371/journal.pone.0225839 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carter VB (2009a). Comparison of American Indian/alaskan natives to non-Indians in out-of-home care. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 90(3), 301–308. 10.1606/1044-3894.3895 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Carter VB (2009b). Prediction of placement into out-of-home care for American Indian/Alaskan Natives compared to non-Indians. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(8), 840–846. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.03.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Carter VB (2010). Factors predicting placement of urban American Indian/Alaskan Natives into out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(5), 657–663. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.12.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Carter VB (2011). Urban American Indian/alaskan natives compared to non-Indians in out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 90(1), 17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (2018). 2017 national survey on drug use and health: Detailed tables (p. 1209). In Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, ■■■. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2014). Parental substance use and the child welfare system (p. 13). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cohen LR, Hien DA, & Batchelder S (2008). The impact of cumulative maternal trauma and diagnosis on parenting behavior. Child Maltreatment, 13(1), 27–38. 10.1177/1077559507310045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Colmant SA (2000). U.S. and Canadian boarding schools: A review, past and present. Native Americas, 17(42), 9. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cook JR, & Kilmer RP (2010). Defining the scope of systems of care: An ecological perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(1), 18–20. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Crawford B, & Bradley MS (2016). Parent gender and child removal in physical abuse and neglect cases. Children and Youth Services Review, 65, 224–230. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.04.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Crofoot TL, & Harris MS (2012). An Indian Child Welfare perspective on disproportionality in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1667–1674. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.04.028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cross TL, Earle K, Echo-Hawk H, & Manness K (2000). Cultural strengths and challenges in implementing a system of care model in American Indian Communities National Indian child welfare association. Systems of Care: Promising Practices in Children’s Mental Health (Research Vol-1, 1(1), 104. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cunningham JK, Solomon TA, & Muramoto ML (2016). Alcohol use among Native Americans compared to whites: Examining the veracity of the ‘Native American elevated alcohol consumption’ belief. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 160(1), 65–75. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.12.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Delker E, Brown Q, & Hasin DS (2016). Alcohol consumption in demographic subpopulations. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 38(1), 7–15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dettlaff AJ, Rivaux SL, Baumann DJ, Fluke JD, Rycraft JR, & James J (2011). Disentangling substantiation: The influence of race, income, and risk on the substantiation decision in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(9), 1630–1637. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dettlaff AJ, & Rycraft JR (2022). Culturally competent systems of care with latino children and families. Child Welfare League of America, 88(6), 105–122. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Donald KL, Bradley LK, Day P, Critchley R, & Nuccio KE (2003). Comparison between American Indian and non-Indian out-of-home placements. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 84(2), 267–274. 10.1606/1044-3894.91 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. English DJ, Thompson R, & White CR (2015). Predicting risk of entry into foster care from early childhood experiences: A survival analysis using longscan data. Child Abuse & Neglect, 45(1), 57–67. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.04.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Evans-Campbell T (2008). Historical trauma in American Indian/native Alaska communities: A multilevel framework for exploring impacts on individuals, families, and communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(3), 316–338. 10.1177/0886260507312290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Evans-Campbell T, & Campbell C (2011). Indigenist oppression and resistance in Indian Child welfare: Reclaiming our children. Social welfare policy: Regulation and resistance among people of color. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  30. Evans-Campbell T, Walters KL, Pearson CR, & Campbell CD (2012). Indian boarding school experience, substance use, and mental health among urban two-Spirit American Indian/Alaska Natives. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 38(5), 421–427. 10.3109/00952990.2012.701358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Fletcher MLM (2009). The origins of the Indian child welfare Act: A survey of the legislative history. Legal Studies Research Paper Series, 7(6), 14. [Google Scholar]
  32. Foster LJJ, Beadnell B, & Pecora PJ (2015). Intergenerational pathways leading to foster care placement of foster care alumni’s children. Child & Family Social Work, 20(1), 72–82. 10.1111/cfs.12057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Fox KE (2004). Are they really neglected? A look at worker perceptions of neglect through the eyes of a national data system. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 1(1), 73–82. [Google Scholar]
  34. Fusco RA (2015). Second generation mothers in the child welfare system: Factors that predict engagement. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 32(6), 545–554. 10.1007/s10560-015-0394-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Galos DL (2017). An epidemiologic analysis of intergenerational child maltreatment. University of Minnesota. [Dissertation]. [Google Scholar]
  36. Getches DH, Wilkinson CF, & Williams RA (1998). Cases and materials on federal Indian law. West Group. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gone JP, Hartmann WE, Pomerville A, Wendt DC, Klem SH, & Burrage RL (2019). The impact of historical trauma on health outcomes for indigenous populations in the USA and Canada: A systematic review. American Psychologist, 74(1), 20–35. 10.1037/amp0000338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Grant BF, Goldstein RB, Saha TD, Chou SP, Jung J, & Zhang H (2015). Epidemiology of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder: Results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions III. JAMA psychiatry, 72(8), 757. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Grinnell Davis Claudette, Dunnigan Allison, & Stevens Bailey B. (2022). Indigenous-centered racial disproportionality in American foster care: a national population study. Journal of Public Child Welfare. 10.1080/15548732.2021.2022565. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Haag AM (2013). The Indian boarding school era and its continuing impact on Tribal families and the provision of government services, 43, 21. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hirchak KA, Leickly E, Herron J, Shaw J, Skalisky J, & Dirks LG (2018). Focus groups to increase the cultural acceptability of a contingency management intervention for American Indian and Alaska Native Communities. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 90(1), 57–63. 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.04.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hunter AA, & Flores G (2021). Social determinants of health and child maltreatment: A systematic review. Pediatric Research, 89(2), 269–274. 10.1038/s41390-020-01175-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Jacobs MD (2013). Remembering the “forgotten child”: The American Indian child welfare crisis of the 1960s and 1970s. American Indian Quarterly, 37(136), 1–2. 10.5250/amerindiquar.37.1-2.0136 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Jiang L, Beals J, Whitesell NR, Roubideaux Y, & Manson S. Mand, the AI-SUPERPFP Team (2008). Stress burden and diabetes in two American Indian reservation communities. Diabetes Care, 31(3), 427–429. 10.2337/dc07-2044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lecrubier Y, Sheehan D, Weiller E, Amorim P, Bonora I, Harnett Sheehan K, Janavs J, & Dunbar G (1997). The Mini international neuropsychiatric interview (mini): A short diagnostic structured interview: Reliability and validity according to the cidi. European Psychiatry, 12(5), 224–231. 10.1016/S0924-9338(97)83296-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Lindsey D (1991). Factors affecting the foster care placement decision: An analysis of national survey data. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(2), 272–281. 10.1037/h0085011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Lowe JM, McDonell MG, Leickly E, Angelo FA, Vilardaga R, McPherson S, Srebnik D, Roll J, & Ries RK (2015). Determining ethyl glucuronide cutoffs when detecting self-reported alcohol use in addiction treatment patients. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 39(5), 905–910. 10.1111/acer.12699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lujan C, DeBruyn LM, May PA, & Bird ME (1989). Profile of abused and neglected American Indian children in the southwest. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13(4), 449–461. 10.1016/0145-2134(89)90049-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Marshall JM, Huang H, & Ryan JP (2011). Intergenerational families in child welfare: Assessing needs and estimating permanency. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(6), 1024–1030. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.01.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Maxwell K (2014). Historicizing historical trauma theory: Troubling the trans-generational transmission paradigm. Transcultural Psychiatry, 51(3), 407–435. 10.1177/1363461514531317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. McDonell MG, Hirchak KA, Herron J, Lyons AJ, Alcover K, Shaw J, Kordas G, Dirks LG, Jansen K, Avey JP, Lillie K, Donovan D, McPherson SM, Dillard D, Ries RK, Roll JM, & Buchwald D (2021). Effect of incentives on alcohol abstinence conducted with three American Indian and Alaska native communities: A multi-site randomized controlled trial. The Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry, 78(6), 599–606. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.4768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. McDonell MG, Leickly E, McPherson SM, Skalisky J, Srebnik D, Angelo F, Vilardaga R, Nepom JR, Roll JM, & Ries RK (2017). A randomized controlled trial of ethyl glucuronide-based contingency management for outpatients with co-occurring alcohol use disorders and serious mental illness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(4), 370–377. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16050627 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. McDonell MG, Nepom JR, Leickly E, Suchy-Dicey A, Hirchak K, Echo-Hawk A, Schwartz SM, Calhoun D, Donovan D, Roll JM, Ries R, & Buchwald D (2016). A culturally-tailored behavioral intervention trial for alcohol use disorders in three American Indian communities: Rationale, design, and methods. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 47, 93–100. 10.1016/j.cct.2015.12.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. McDonell MG, Skalisky J, Leickly E, McPherson S, Battalio S, Nepom JR, Srebnik D, Roll JM, & Ries RK (2015). Using ethyl glucuronide in urine to detect light and heavy drinking in alcohol dependent outpatients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 157, 184–187. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Mertz M, & Andersen SH (2017). The hidden cost of foster-care: New evidence on the inter-generational transmission of foster-care experiences. The British Journal of Social Work, 47(5), 1377–1393. 10.1093/bjsw/bcw132 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Myhra (2011). “It runs in the family”: Intergenerational transmission of historical trauma among urban American Indians and Alaska natives in culturally specific sobriety maintenance programs. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 18(2), 17–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Myhra L, & Wieling E (2014). Intergenerational patterns of substance abuse among urban American Indian families. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 13(1), 1–22. 10.1080/15332640.2013.847391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. National Conference of State Legislatures (2020). List of federal and state recognized tribes. https://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx
  59. National Indian Child Welfare Association (2019). Disproportionality table 2019. https://www.nicwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Disproportionality-Table-2019.pdf
  60. Nebelkopf E, & King J (2003). A holistic System of Care for native Americans in an urban environment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 35(1), 43–52. 10.1080/02791072.2003.10399992 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Olson Zephier MD, & Dombrowski K (2020). A systematic review of Indian boarding schools and attachment in the context of substance use studies of Native Americans. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 7(1), 62–71. 10.1007/s40615-019-00634-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Ondersma SJ (2002). Predictors of neglect within low-SES families: The importance of substance abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72(3), 383–391. 10.1037/0002-9432.72.3.383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Petry NM (2011). Contingency management: What it is and why psychiatrists should want to use it. The Psychiatrist, 35(5), 161–163. 10.1192/pb.bp.110.031831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Puzzanchera C, Taylor M, Kang W, & Smith J (2022). Disproportionality rates for children of color in foster care dashboard. National Center for Juvenile and Family Court Judges. http://www.ncjj.org/AFCARS/Disproportionality_Dashboard.aspx [Google Scholar]
  65. Red Horse JG (1980). Family structure and value orientation in American Indians. Social Casework, 61(8), 462–467. 10.1177/104438948006100803 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Running Bear U, Beals JC, Kaufman EM, & Spero M.and, & and the AI-SUPERPFP Team. (2018). Boarding school attendance and physical health status of Northern Plains Tribes. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 13(3), 633–645. 10.1007/s11482-017-9549-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Simpson JS, Koroloff N, Doerfler A, Garcia M, & Jivanjee P (2001). Promising practices in family provider collaboration, systems of care, promising practices in children’s mental health. (Research vol-3. Research and training center in family support and children’s mental health (p. 129). Portland State University. [Google Scholar]
  68. Stata Corp. (2019). Stata statistical software: Release 16. StataCorp LLC [Google Scholar]
  69. Stroul BA, & Friedman RM (1986). A system of care for severely emotionally disturbed children & youth, (p. 172). Florida Mental Health Insitute. [Google Scholar]
  70. The Annie E (2022). Casey Foundation Kids count data center. The Annie E. Casey foundation. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/6246-children-in-foster-care-by-race-and-hispanic-origin#detailed/1/any/false/37 [Google Scholar]
  71. The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (1978). Washington. Public Law, 95–608, 92. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title25/pdf/USCODE-2009-title25-chap21-sec1902.pdf [Google Scholar]
  72. Thieman AA, & Dail PW (1997). Predictors of out-of-home placement in a family preservation program: Are welfare recipients particularly vulnerable? Policy Studies Journal, 25(1), 124–139. 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1997.tb00011.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Thornberry TP, Henry KL, Smith CA, Ireland TO, Greenman SJ, & Lee RD (2013). Breaking the cycle of maltreatment: The role of safe, stable, and nurturing relationships. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(4), S25–S31. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.04.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Evaluation findings: Annual Report to congress 2010 (evaluation findings No. PEP12-CMHI2010; p. 119). U.S. Department of health and human services. [Google Scholar]
  75. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2020). Child maltreatment 2019. In Administration on children, youth and families, children’s bureau. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment
  76. Whitbeck LB, Adams GW, Hoyt DR, & Chen X (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring historical trauma among American Indian people. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(3–4), 119–130. 10.1023/B [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement 1
NIHMS1926941-supplement-Supplement_1.pdf (3.9KB, pdf)

RESOURCES