A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Historical Trauma, Place, and Caregiving In Rural American Indian and Alaska Native Early Childhood Systems

Background and Purpose:

This paper explores challenges encountered by AI/AN communities in rural early childhood (EC) care systems. Navigating policies across federal, state, local, and tribal levels exposes distinct negotiations and unequal power dynamics, disrupting tribal rights to self-determination (Dennison, 2017). This paper aims to answer the following research question: What impacts has the institutionalization of service delivery had on rural, tribally controlled EC programs such as Head Start, home visiting, and early intervention? It hypothesizes that AI/AN EC professionals attempt to balance compliance with external policies while preserving and promoting Indigenous perspectives, which presents a significant challenge.

Methods:

This conceptual paper utilizes a theory-driven approach to outline key domains of an emerging phenomenon (Jaakkola, 2020). It integrates a focused literature review of select EC federal policies, historical trauma, and critical place theory to establish themes across tribal EC programs and policy structures. This is followed by a comparative case study analysis exploring interconnections between rural tribal communities and institutional structures. The case study incorporates elements of history, identity, and space, reflecting on the experiences of two children: one from a small rural white community and one enrolled in a rural, tribally controlled EC program. Reflexive practices are also used to provide insight into systemic challenges in delivering equitable services to children and families in tribal EC systems.

The theoretical framework is grounded in historical trauma and the significance of place, as guided by Crowe et al. (2011). Emphasizing a comparative approach, the case study examines contemporary phenomena across tribally and non-tribally controlled programs, providing insight into factors shaping the current state of rural EC systems.

Results:

Policies implemented without consideration of critical place and historical trauma reveal several key themes: (1) discrepancies in assistance and intervention for AI/AN children across tribally and non-tribally controlled EC programs; (2) EC programs grounded in colonial ideologies negatively impact the well-being of AI/AN children and families; (3) disparities in early intervention referrals for Indigenous children; (4) the need for context-specific strategies in service delivery; (5) institutionalized programs shape caregiver behavior and limit access to resources; and (6) overly restrictive “universal” policies hinder EC professionals’ ability to engage in timely and culturally responsive ways.

Conclusion and Implications:

This paper reveals the intentional inequities stemming from systemic oppression perpetuated by federally institutionalized programs and emphasizes the importance of re-evaluating program supports and expectations for federally funded tribal EC programs. Rural tribal EC programs continue to be an area with very limited research. The spectrum of rural geographic locations, ranging from very remote to remote, significantly affects AI/AN children receiving services in these communities (Sacca et al., 2022). Historical approaches controlling AI/AN communities are ingrained in EC programming systems, as evidenced in the case studies. Addressing these issues is crucial for fostering equity and responsiveness within tribal EC care systems.