NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
Welfare Reform Implementation in Indian
Country:
a National Forum
Executive Summary
Saturday, February 28, 1998
Grand Hyatt Hotel, Washington, D.C.
On Saturday, February 28, 1998, the National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI) hosted the first in a series of national forums to discuss the impacts,
options and concerns surrounding the implementation of welfare reform in Indian country.
Dr. Eddie Brown, Director of the Kathryn M. Buder Center for
American Indian Studies and Associate Dean at the George Warren Brown School of Social
Work, both part of Washington University in St. Louis, served as the day's moderator for
the panels. Dr. Brown's experience as the former Department of Interior Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs helped maintain a crisp focus on the magnitude of the issues
addressed throughout the day.
NCAI President and Jamestown S'Klallam Chairman W. Ron Allen
provided the welcoming remarks which centered around the need for Indian country to begin
discussing solutions to the impacts of welfare reform on its tribal communities. President
Allen suggested that by generating an authoritative dialog among the social service
experts familiar with tribal communities and their unique needs surrounding welfare
reform, formidable solutions to these impacts could be developed. Further, President Allen
foresees NCAI's future role in welfare reform as one that includes relaying to the
Administration and to the Congress a tribal welfare reform agenda that seeks to adjust
current law and policy for the benefit of Indian communities striving to break the chain
of welfare dependency.
Olivia Golden, Assistant Secretary for the Administration For
Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health And Human Services (DHHS), gave the
keynote address, setting the tone for the panel discussions that followed. Her statements
focused on an overview of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and an update on
the fulfillment of welfare reform commitments by the Administration to the tribes. In her
discussion of TANF, Assistant Secretary Golden emphasized the importance of the work
requirements under Pub. L.104-193 (PRWORA) and related legislation. A guiding thought
behind the implementation of TANF is that welfare assistance should be a temporary source
of aid during the transition of current welfare recipients into the work force. This is
reflected in provisions as time limits on eligibility for assistance in the legislation.
Tribes, just as states implementing TANF, must also limit the period of time that their
members can receive assistance. Under Federal law this is a five year lifetime limit.
However tribes with unemployment rates of 50% or more may exclude time living on that
reservation from a members five year lifetime limit.
The keynote address affirmed that the DHHS would fulfill
commitments it made to tribes to help with the transition to TANF. The federal government
will provide broad consultation to all tribes considering the TANF option as well as early
information dissemination to all participating tribes. The Assistant Secretary also made
reference to the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) grants awarded to tribes and
regional Indian organizations to assist in the provision of information.
Panel 1 - Tribal TANF Plans
Following the keynote address members of the first panel engaged
in a dialog about tribal TANF plans. Membership of the first panel consisted of Ray
Apadoca, Executive Officer for the Division of Tribal Services, part of the DHHS/ACF
Office of Community Services; Beth Meyers, Family Services Division Chief with the Red
Cliff Band of Chippewas; Gerald Hemminger, Jr., Council Member Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux;
and Joe Finkbonner, Life Center Director with the Lummi Nation.
The first panel began with an update from Mr. Appadoca on the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on tribal TANF regulations. The NPRM has been
approached with the philosophy of allowing tribes who operate under TANF as much
flexibility as possible, within the parameters of the law. (E.g. - tribes could define
"family" in a way that reflects traditional family structures and serve
populations outside reservation boundaries through state agreements). Under the NPRM,
tribes would also be able to allocate funds to services that are not usually public
assistance, such as education or vocational training. Mr. Appadoca also emphasized the
provisions which allow for flexibility in establishing time limits for tribal TANF
recipients. The time limits required under tribal TANF plans can reflect varying economic
needs and employment opportunities.
After an update on the NPRM , the other panelists offered
insights based on their experiences with TANF. Beth Meyers reported that Red Cliff had
been successful in implementing cash assistance programs for members for their tribal
members. Under the federal program, Red Cliff had received more funding than was available
under state contract and had also successfully implemented programs to assess mental
health, alcoholism, and drug abuse among their TANF population. Ms. Meyers added that 100%
of their two parent families are currently in a work component program.
Mr. Hemminger's experience was that the funding received under
TANF was insufficient to create the economic development needed to create jobs. However,
his tribe had been able to successfully use TANF dollars to provide educational
opportunities to members. Despite difficulties in establishing an economic base that
allows for substantial job creation, Mr. Hemminger strongly encouraged tribes to consider
the tribal TANF option.
Joe Finkbonner related that the Lummi Nation had not yet adopted
TANF, but was hoping to do so in the future. Mr. Finkbonner expressed that current tribal
concerns surround the accuracy of the projected number of tribal TANF recipients.
Caseloads will most likely be higher than projected by the BIA and will probably increase
as services become available directly from the tribe. Reliable data and the consolidation
of services should minimize these risks as the Lummi Nation prepares to submit their TANF
plan for approval.
Forum participants generally agreed that TANF could be
advantageous for tribes if approached properly and with the right amount of planning.
Panelists shared a common view that TANF had the potential of strengthening tribal
sovereignty by allowing tribes to address the needs of their members directly.
The issues raised by the first panel discussed did raise some
concerns from the audience. The aggregate of the forum attendees initially saw the
requirement for time limits as a potential obstacle. However the flexibility to balance
these time limit requirements with varying economic needs and situations dispelled much of
the concern surrounding this aspect of the legislation. Child care, transportation, and
job creation raised questions as well. These issues will be addressed in more detail in
future NCAI forums.
Panel 2 - Job Creation and Job Training Programs
The concerns expressed around employment opportunities in Indian
country anticipated the topic of the next panel discussion, economic development and job
creation. Panelists Tom Dowd, Chief, Division of Indian and Native American Programs U.S.
Department of Labor (DINAP/DOL); Norm DeWeaver, Director, Indian and Native American
Employment and Training Coalition; and Dr. David Gipp, President, United Tribes Technical
College and board member of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC),
offered their perspective on the issues of economic development and job creation.
Tom Dowd related that the DOL, in its efforts to realize the
success of Welfare to Work (W2W) for tribes, was working with the Division of Tribal
Services in DHHS. It is anticipated that their combined efforts will increase the
likelihood of W2W being effective for tribal TANF recipients. Furthermore, the DOL has
brought together twelve tribal representatives to ensure that the process of W2W
implementation would be based on tribal consultation and tribal initiative. Despite the
collaborative efforts of the DOL and the DHHS, resources made available to tribes would
still be very limited.
One strategy that tribes might employ to utilize limited
resources more effectively is to integrate related programs and services. Norm Deweaver
related that the employment resources currently available would not attain their maximum
effectiveness as stand alone programs. However by consolidating existing services and
programs tribes can realize the greatest effectiveness with the limited funding available.
This can be done legally under Pub. L. 102-477. By operating as a "477" tribe,
an Indian Nation can finance services without having to account for spending on a program
by program basis. Also, consolidation of program costs at the tribal level saves
administrative costs and eliminates the need to create new divisions within tribal
governments to carry out similar services to the same tribal clients.
Two other legislative policy developments were deemed significant
by panelists. First, there is now legislation that allows W2W funds to be used as wage
subsidies in the private sector without limitation. This, in part, will go far in
addressing the issue of job retention. The other, encouraging policy development, has been
a White House Executive Order on Tribal Colleges and Universities. This Tribal Colleges
E.O. generated some discussion as to what the role of higher education is in Indian
Country. In the most impoverished sector of America, where in some cases over fifty
percent of the population lack high school diplomas or GED certificates, the question of
education is critical.
Tribal Colleges have a unique role to play in the welfare reform
developments impacting Indian Country, largely because of their capability to take on
assessment services. However W2W is predicated on getting people into the work force and
does not address the issue of training and education. A substantive plan for bringing
higher education to the tribes is still being developed.
Through the second panel dialog it became apparent that the
challenges facing tribes in the area of economic development and job creation would not be
surmounted in the immediate future. Forum participants concurred on the issue of service
consolidation. Tribal services will need to be integrated wherever possible to realize the
full potential of limited federal funding. Education levels among tribal members must be
elevated to create a more competitive tribal work force. Unfortunately, the resources
currently available for tribes to meet these challenges continue to be elusive.
Panel 3 - Federal/State/Tribal Government Partnerships
It was suggested that partnerships between tribes and states will
be a critical factor in helping Indian Nations facilitate economic development and
successfully adjust to the changes in the welfare laws. The discourse of the third panel
focused on federal, state, and tribal government partnerships. John Meredith, Tribal
Welfare Reform Coordinator, State of Montana Division of Child and Family Services and
Charlene Lewis Meeks, Deputy Director, California Department of Social Services, Office of
Community Relations, joined Denis Turner, Executive Director, Southern California Tribal
Chairman's Association and Rhonda Whiting, Attorney, Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes to discuss what steps could be taken to help build partnerships between tribes and
states. Panelists also reported the current progress of their respective situations.
In the state of Montana tribes have generally opted to contract
with the state in implementing welfare services. Mr. Meredith reported that this had not
helped to facilitate good relations between the tribes and the state. A lack of
understanding and poor communication between state liaisons and the tribes led to feelings
of animosity by tribes as state programs were being implemented. To address this, the
state has formed community advisory councils to become more attuned to cultural
differences, thus promoting a better understanding between Montana's tribes and state
officials. Montana also makes approximately forty-thousand dollars available to each tribe
at the end of the biennium for the purpose of educational development. Montana will also
provide a state match to those tribes who assume TANF responsibilities, through June of
1999. Beyond this date state match funding remains uncertain.
Further discussion revealed that state/tribal relations in
California were more progressive than in Montana. The state of California has agreed to
match federal grants to tribes implementing TANF and W2W. California has formed advisory
committees to obtain tribal input and to facilitate a greater degree of cultural
sensitivity to the states first inhabitants.
The progress that California tribes have made with the state can be attributed to aggressive action on the part of the tribes themselves. State/tribal relations in California have historically been characterized by animosity. The tribes were able to overcome these obstacles though and forge cordial relations with the state by forming tribal coalitions and approaching the state legislator as a more formidable political force. The successful gaming enterprises that some of the California tribes have also worked to the benefit of tribes. Gaming revenues have provided tribes with the where with all to do the necessary research to put together a well packaged TANF plan.
Members of the panel agreed that for states and tribes to build
relationships and successfully implement welfare reform it will be critical to establish
open dialogs. It will also be necessary for states to attain a higher level of cultural
awareness and sensitivity thus reducing the potential of damage done by ignorance. These
basic ideas provide a foundation for improved Tribal/State relations, but each state poses
unique challenges for the tribes that live within its borders.
Panel 4 - Children and Family Support Services
Panel four focused on Children and Family Support Services. Panelists included Donald Sykes, Director, Office of Community Services, ACF/DHHS; Janet Wise, Chairperson, National Indian Child Care Association; Alex Yazza, TANF Program Director, Navajo Nation; and Leila Help-Tulley, Executive Director, Division of Social Services, Navajo Nation.
A Child Care and Development Block Grant authorized in 1990
afforded tribes the availability of federal dollars to provide comprehensive child care
services. The grant was re-authorized five years later providing further funding for child
care services. Although tribal child care funding has increased over the years, it has not
kept pace with the child care needs in Indian county. With the exception of a recent
presidential plan for child care, there is no existing legislation designating funds for
tribes to develop child care and family support services. Several major child care
proposals are before the House and the Senate, none of these bills include direct
subsidies for tribes.
Because funding is inadequate for child care many tribes are
having to prioritize TANF clients under Head Start or other tribal child care programs. A
participant in the forum suggested that this dilemma could be addressed in part by being
more aggressive in the pursuit of services that the states provide.
Dr. Brown then shifted the focus of the fourth panel discussion
shifted to the efforts of Navajo Nation to implement a TANF plan under Pub. L. 93-638 self
determination contract. Initially Navajo Nation intended to implement TANF in strict
compliance with Section 412 of PRWORA. After further analysis, Navajo Nation determined
that a 638 contract plan would allow the tribe, or any tribe with similar intentions, a
greater control in the way they administered their TANF program. The request for the
contract was denied by the DHHS.
Navajo Nation received a fax copy of the letter from DHHS to
Secretary Shalala citing the following reasons for denying the request: 1) the TANF
program is intended to operate for the benefit of needy families without consideration for
the status of these families as Indian or non-Indian; 2) the TANF program is not a program
under which the federal government would otherwise directly provide services to Indian
tribes pursuant to the federal law; and, 3) since TANF program cannot be characterized as
either a program that operates for the benefit of Indians because of their status as
Indians, or, as a program under which the federal government would otherwise directly
provide services to Indian tribes. Navajo Nation intends to challenge the Secretary's
decision in Federal District Court and continue to pursue a self-governance approach to
their tribal TANF initiative.
Panel 5 - Impact Data Collection Methodologies
The fifth and final panel discussed the needs surrounding Impact
Data Collection Methodologies and TANF client tracking systems. Dr. Shanta Pandey,
Associate Professor, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University and
Rick Anderson, President of Tribal Data Resources led these discussions.
Dr. Pandey reported that current research is focused on analyzing
administrative changes that will come with the changes in federal welfare assistance.
Efforts include studies of demographic characteristics of welfare recipients who find jobs
and those who don't find jobs, as well as a look at major support services.
The most important thing that was noticed in the area of data
collection needs was that tribes wanting to go independent were also wanting to
subcontract back to the state those operations that included baseline data collection and
client data reporting requirements. This type of practice makes sense because many tribes
currently lack the resources and technical infrastructure to assume these
responsibilities. Also, most states have been developing such data systems for AFDC
recipients for the past 60 years with the help of federal subsidies. Under current law,
tribes are not offered comparable levels of technical support, nor is it perceived to
become available in the foreseeable future.
Tribal Data Resources (TDR) has been very aggressive in the
technological field. TDR has becoming a leading force in the area baseline data collection
software and tribal demographics software development. Currently, over 100 tribes
throughout Indian country use the TDR systems. TDR envisions delivery of its systems to
even more tribes as the welfare reform cycle progresses. They also expect to work closely
with tribal entities currently developing client data and tracking systems which are
necessary to meet the reporting requirements under TANF. TDR hopes that these latter
mentioned systems will soon be integrated with TDR's current systems to handle both types
of data collection needs.
Dr. Eddie Brown concluded the forum with the message that tribes
should look at welfare reform as the beginning of new opportunities to strengthen tribal
families and communities. Although many challenges lay ahead for tribes seeking to take
advantage of these opportunities, in the end it is felt that the quality of life for
tribal members will improve by successful implementation of welfare reform programs in
Indian country.
NCAI is scheduled to host three additional forums on national
welfare reform issues throughout the remainder of 1998. The first of these additional
forums will be held on Thursday, April 23, 1998, at the DoubleTree Hotel - Lloyd Center,
in Portland, Oregon. Its focus will be on the impacts of welfare reform on tribal social
services. Five panels will address topics such as: welfare reform's impacts on housing and
transportation needs; addictions, dependencies and violence; emergency family assistance
and health care needs; welfare of children; and, welfare of elders.
The second forum will focus on the areas of job creation, job
training, adult and vocational education, economic development and infrastructure
renovation. This forum is scheduled for Sunday, June 14, 1998, as part of the NCAI
Mid-Year Conference in Green Bay, WI.
NCAI's final forum of the year is scheduled for Sunday, October
18, 1998, as part of NCAI's 55th Annual Session at the Myrtle Beach Convention
Center in Myrtle Beach, SC. This forum will focus on the development of tribal,
congressional and administrative agendas on changes and improvements to the welfare reform
laws. It is envisioned that this consensus agenda will be developed through the collective
efforts of tribal leaders, tribal welfare reform experts and national and regional tribal
welfare reform grantees, along with federal and state welfare reform officials who have
worked with tribes throughout the year in the welfare reform arena.
As tribal leaders have stated, "welfare reform is one of the greatest changes to occur in Indian country since the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA)." Significant impacts can be felt in areas such as social services, health care, economic development, employment, adult education and job training throughout many tribal communities. These impacts must be better understood if changes are to occur for the benefit of tribes at both the federal and state levels. Moreover, the relationships between tribes, states and the federal government
must also be improved and commitments strengthened
in order to improve the quality of life for impoverished Indian families. Through the
directive of tribal leaders throughout Indian country, NCAI stands ready to work with all
interested parties to ensure that these changes are achieved.
* * * * *