صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Tribal Workgroup on Tribal Needs Assessments

Executive Summary

B.

WORKGROUP MEETINGS AND PROCESS

Page 4

The Workgroup was comprised of 40 BIA and Tribal individuals including Tribal leaders and technical representatives. (See Appendix C for a complete list of Workgroup members.) The Workgroup was Co-Chaired by BIA Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs Kevin Gover and W. Ron Allen, NCAI President and Tribal Chairman, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. Five sub-groups were identified to complete the various tasks and assignments. These sub-groups included: (1) TPA history and distribution; (2) identification of national standards and comparisons to Tribal programs; (3) overview of Federal obligation to Indian Tribes; (4) overview of all Federal funding for Indian programs; and (5) contract support costs.2

A total of 8 Full Workgroup meetings were conducted over a 10-month period. Additionally, numerous sub-group meetings were held during this same time frame. All meetings were open and there was considerable participation by other Tribal representatives. Formal summaries of Workgroup meetings were recorded and widely circulated throughout Indian Country. This information was also posted on the BIA Website and the National Congress of American Indians provided broadcast faxes and Workgroup updates to the Tribes. Additionally, national and regional updates were also conducted.

While the Workgroup conducted its meetings and research as a joint effort, Section 129 called for the final report to be submitted by the BIA only. This required review and clearance by the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the Department of Justice, prior to submission of the final BIA report to Congress. Tribal leaders and representatives who participated in this effort, however, recognized that additional findings and recommendations were needed and made a decision to submit a separate Tribal report.

Further, detailed and comprehensive documents were developed by the Workgroup which were not included in its entirety in the BIA report; including: (1) research of statutes, executive actions and policy declarations, selected court opinions, and historical development of Federal Indian policies; and (2) budget analysis showing the trends in Federal funding for Indian programs (for the period 1976 to present) including updated information regarding Tribal needs; and (3) historical review and funding information of TPA. The Tribal Workgroup has included this supporting information as part of this overall report.

2 Please note that BIA Contract Support Costs policy and funding issues are addressed in a separate report to be submitted by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). The NCAI formed a Policy Workgroup on CSC consisting of Tribal, BIA, Indian Health Services and Office of Inspector

Tribal Workgroup on Tribal Needs Assessments

Executive Summary

Page 5

The Tribal Workgroup adopted the overall theme of "Empowerment of Tribal Governments". The findings and recommendations included in this report are based on *the research and data gathered by the Workgroup during it's deliberations and are supportive of tribal self-determination.

[blocks in formation]

After extensive analysis, discussion and debate among the various sub-groups, the following summary points capture the main findings of the Tribal Workgroup representatives. These findings were also included in the BIA report:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Historically, Federal Indian policy has been governed by the solemn commitments made to Indian Tribes in treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions and the general course of the Tribes' dealings with the United States.

Currently, the BIA's Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) system provides funds to partially fulfill the federal trust responsibility through supporting critical and essential tribal government services.

TPA represents the only dependable recurring Federal resources available to
Tribes to provide basic governmental services to their members.

Cutting or reallocating TPA budgets will abridge the long-standing Federal responsibility for the support of essential Tribal governmental operations services to Indian people.

TPA is a unique part of the Federal Indian budget that relies upon Tribal governments to identify spending priorities based upon the most critical needs of their respective communities. Shifting resources away from TPA deprives the Federal government of valuable input from the Tribes on how scarce Federal funds should be allocated to address the highest priority needs.

Despite the unique Federal obligation to Indian Tribes, Federal funding has been insufficient to address overall Tribal needs and has consistently lagged behind the level of funding provided to other governmental entities to provide similar governmental services.

Annual overall Federal appropriations to Indian Tribes have generally failed to enable Tribal communities to keep pace with even the poorest of Americans. Funding for TPA between 1990 and 1999 failed to keep pace with inflation. In fact, the value of TPA funding in 1999 (in 1990 dollars) is less than comparable

[ocr errors]

Tribal Workgroup on Tribal Needs Assessments
Executive Summary

9.

10.

11.

12.

Page 6

TPA funding disparities exist among the BIA Areas, Agencies and Tribes due to a variety of unique and complex historical, geographical, demographic, political and programmatic factors.

There is an inadequate data collection system within the BIA to provide for comprehensive reporting regarding the use of TPA funds. However, Tribes are accountable for the use of TPA funds and have provided information directly to Congress, e.g. annual Self-Governance funding agreements.

Because current Federal funding has been vastly insufficient to fulfill the
obligation of the Federal government to Tribes, additional TPA appropriations are
necessary to fulfill these obligations.

Re-distribution of current allocations of TPA base funding would cause significant disruption to already under-funded existing BIA and Tribal programs and to the delivery of vital services. A re-distribution of each Tribe's current TPA base funding would result in making Tribes "equally poor".

13. Only a small portion of the overall Indian population is benefitted by significant Tribal gaming revenue, and only a relatively small amount of TPA resources are associated with these Tribes. In FY1999, 11 of these Tribes have voluntarily returned their TPA funding.

14.

15.

16.

17.

The Tribal Workgroup representatives have developed distribution options for new or additional TPA appropriations which move Tribes towards funding parity, both among Tribes and with Mainstream America, without causing disruption to the recurring TPA base funding for existing programs and services.

The TPA funding options emphasize increased funding for all Tribes with
distribution priority to lower funded Tribes.

Data collected by the Workgroup clearly demonstrates that Tribal governments receive less and spend less than other governmental entities.

Most Tribes do not have the resources to supplement their TPA programs. While preliminary data gathered by the Workgroup demonstrates that some Tribes do supplement their basic governmental services supported through TPA with their

Tribal Workgroup on Tribal Needs Assessments

Executive Summary

Page 7

D.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The Workgroup has concluded that current TPA funding levels are wholly inadequate to provide Tribes with even basic programs and services, as demonstrated by the comparison of TPA funding to relevant national standards which have been preliminarily identified. Thus, the Workgroup implores the Administration and Congress to increase TPA funding to a level sufficient to meet these national standards.

The Tribal Workgroup representatives strongly oppose any re-distribution of existing TPA base funding that is recurring to each Tribe. The recommended alternative TPA distribution is based upon future TPA increases and is designed to increase the funding of programs for Tribes to the level enjoyed by the rest of America while increasing the lower-funded Tribes at an accelerated rate to decrease funding disparities among Tribes. This option also provides for an inflationary adjustment.

Means testing would violate the government-to-government relationship and trust obligations to Tribes. Due to the enormous level of unmet need faced by nearly all Tribes, as well as the continuing Federal trust responsibility, the Workgroup strongly opposes the concept of means testing for Tribes. This type of policy would penalize Tribes with relatively more (though generally insufficient)

resources.

The Workgroup recognizes the need for program measures baseline data to be submitted for budget formulation and justification, fund distribution and to increase funding to address Tribal unmet needs. Workgroup representatives developed a format that would identify and gather Tribal-specific unmet program and service needs. The Workgroup recommends that the BIA develop and implement a comprehensive database system in FY2000 and maintain current statistical information about Tribally-specific unmet needs on an on-going basis.

Removing programs from the TPA is inconsistent with the federal policy of selfdetermination and self-government and Tribal government authority in determining funding priorities within the TPA programs and budget categories. Consistent with this policy, the Workgroup recommends restoration of programs previously removed from the TPA base, e.g. law enforcement.

The Tribal Workgroup representatives recommend that Tribal governments be provided greater flexibility in determining funding priorities within budget

Tribal Workgroup on Tribal Needs Assessments
Executive Summary

7.

E.

Page 8

The Joint DOI/BIA/Tribal 1994 report provided recommendations and guidance on funding for small Tribes. Over the past five years, the Administration has requested funding to implement these recommendations. The Tribal Workgroup representatives recommend that a minimum base ($160,000 and $200,000 in Alaska) for basic governmental functions be provided to all Tribes. However, funding of these basic governmental functions should be separately identified from other service programs as outlined in the 1994 Joint DOI/BIA/Tribal 1994 report.

OTHER TRIBAL WORKGROUP POSITIONS

As part of the consultation process for the BIA report, the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs sent a letter to all Tribal leaders posing questions related to TPA. The following is the formal response drafted by the Tribal Workgroup on these questions.

1.

Should we continue to exclude funding for contract support, GA, HIP and
Road Maintenance from Tribal base funding?

The Tribes have differing positions regarding this issue. These programs are currently excluded from TPA base funding and funds are distributed based on needs. Some Tribes are concerned with the under-funding of these programs and the ability to provide adequate services. On the other hand, some Tribes would like to have the ability to identify the level of funds available for these programs and include in their Tribal base. The Joint DOI/BIA/Tribal Task Force 1994 report recommended the inclusion of these programs in TPA and identified a process for determining the fairness of allocation regarding these programs.

The greater issue involves empowerment of Tribal government and Tribes discretion to use funds. Tribes should have the ability to chose whether or not they would like to include in their base. Finally, the Tribal Workgroup representatives support current joint efforts between the Tribes and Administration regarding funding and policy regarding contract support costs. The National Congress of American Indians National Policy Workgroup on Contract Support is coordinating with the BIA, Indian Health Service and Office of Inspector General to develop both short and long-term recommendations on contract support costs. The NCAI Workgroup anticipates a final report to Congress regarding these solutions to be completed in April 1999.

2.

Should we continue to spread general increases in TPA funding
proportionateley to all Tribes, or should we target the tribes with the
greatest unmet need for such increases? Should we first meet all
inflationary costs of all tribes before using a need-based formula to

« السابقةمتابعة »