If you are reading that title and thinking, “Kate, I am pretty sure you have posted this before. Like, a lot.” you are not wrong:
https://turtletalk.blog/?s=AFCARS
In fact, titles from prior posts include “Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Again.” and “Déjà vu All Over Again: AFCARS Comments Needed“
The short version of this 10 year saga is that at the end of the Obama administration, HHS promulgated a rule that would require Title IV-E agencies to collect information on ICWA. Before that could go into effect, the Trump administration withdrew it, and issued a different rule. After that happened, tribes and groups representing LGBTQ+ interests sued the feds to get the original rule back. Disclaimer, the MSU Indian Law Clinic represents the plaintiffs in that litigation along with Lambda Legal and Democracy Forward. Finally, the Biden administration has proposed a new rule that would go back to collecting ICWA data (this rule does not include sexual orientation or gender identity data elements). This means, yes, if you have worked in this area for the past 10 years, you may have submitted upwards of 5 sets of comments on this issue (I just checked, and we put our first one in 9 years ago, which was written by a 2L who is now a tribal leader).
The proposed regulation is here, as is the link to submit comments:
What does this mean? Well, dust off your prior comments regarding the history of ICWA, the importance of ICWA, the importance of data related to ICWA, the importance of ICWA data to the children, families, and tribes involved in the system, and review the latest proposal. The actual data reporting requirements begins on 13665. Then submit an updated version of your comments in support of collecting ICWA data before April 23, 2024.
At a very first glance, this proposed rule appears to include a lot of important data questions that would inform practice and help with compliance, and limit the data collection to “state” Title IV-E agencies. The proposed rule appears marginally more limited than the original 2016 rule, but more expansive than the 2020 rule, though I will need to compare them more closely.
