NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

55TH ANNUAL CONVENTION

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

OCTOBER 18, 1998

NCAI


Organizational Reports on Welfare Reform in Indian Country: A National Forum
Sunday, October 18, 1999 Myrtle Beach Convention Center Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

TAPE TRANSCRIPTION

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE CHAIRMAN: -- welcome you here today. Ron.

RON: Thank you, Eddie. I really do appreciate your willingness to chair this session and chair -- Bobby Whitefeather, you know, was chairing one of our other sessions that we've had. And it's really great to see tribal leaders come in here and help us orchestrate these workshops on welfare reform. You know we've been dealing with this issue for a couple of years now. And a lot has happened in the last couple of years as we figure out how we're going to deal with the welfare reform and its impacts on our tribes and communities.

It is my understanding we have somewhere in the range of 20 to 25 tribes or tribal organizations who actually are running TANF programs. And we're learning a lot from their experiences. I know that is a big issue for us. And the rest of us are managing to survive one way or another with the states and various programs with the states. So one of the things that we were trying to do, and I know Dr. Eddie Brown was also contributing a great deal to this effort in helping us understand what this impact is -- what this whole devolution is with our tribes and our tribal operations. And so we just need to make sure that we're prepared to make the argument and make the case with the kind of data and the kind of research that will help persuade the Congress to make some legislative adjustment to the Act that actually provides the kinds of authorities and resources that the tribes need.

There's been a number of studies that have been conducted by different individuals and organizations. I know Dr. Brown is one of them, but I know that these studies are issues and I'm assuming that we are going to be getting into the discussion of some of their observations and findings today just to get a better handle on how we're handling it. Even though we have, right now, a rather small group, I am very appreciative of you because you know in many of our circles, no matter what we're dealing with, whether it's the welfare reform issues, the gaming issues, tribal court and enforcement, et cetera, it's the way it seems like it always is. You have a small cadre of tribal leaders and staff people who lead the way and the rest of the Indian country benefit from all your hard work and your understanding of what the issues are. But Levens, who was here -- it has been very, very helpful for us at NCAI for us to help to take a lead role on the national scale so that we could figure out exactly what's going on and what are the variances in each of our tribal communities. Because whether it's Porch Creek or here at Catawba country or up in Alaska, I mean, we have different situations in every one of our communities and we need to know what are the circumstances that we need.

I think that our arguments about these issues and concerns that we have has been persuasive. And you probably aware, we were awarded a three-year grant from the Kellogg Foundation. And it's a $1 million grant, I don't remember the exact number, but it's close to $1 million and it's going to help us evaluate the devolution process and the impact of this Act onto our communities and to examine tribal options. Now all these things are going to help us shape out what our game plan is in terms of how to deal with the Hill. I know that they are going to be focusing in on five specific areas. There probably will be others, but these areas of job creation, worforce development issues and problems that we have, the tribal educational needs and the impacts and concerns that we have in that area with regard to the welfare programs or eligibility issues, child care and children services, transportation, housing and elder care. The impacts of the new change in conditions on Medicaid, Medicare and managed health care initiative will certainly affect us.

And last but not least, the tribal data collection and clearinghouse needs. But those are definitely areas that we have that we need to deal with. And I think that it is going to be very important for us to have our act together to deal with the Congress. You know we are just now still working with the Congress in helping it conclude its work from the 105th second session and tomorrow morning we will be right back on the phone with the last minute appropriation issues. And you're probably all aware that there's a whole lot of posturing going on. And the posturing between the Democrats and the Republicans and they're all posturing for the upcoming elections and who is going to put themselves in the better position in the next session.

So regardless of how we fare, in other words if the Democrats, you know, get a little more control or gain a few seats in the House going into the next session, that will probably help us. But we should expect and prepare for the worst. I mean if the Republicans get more control over the House and they get more headstrong about what they believe is in our best interests, then we're going to have to deal with that. And then that's why there are arguments or persuasion -- you know, the kinds of data that we can present and provide to the Congress to persuade these congressional leaders and administration that some changes are necessary to affect us and to help our situation. We are going to have to have a more compelling argument.

So regardless of how it turns out, we have a heck of a job in front of us and I know that you will be helping us shape out what that argument is, what our materials are we'll be using, what the data is that we are going to use to make our case so that we can put ourselves in a better position. You have a number of grantees who are here who are going to make some presentations and a number of tribal organizations who are going to share their experiences so we will gain from these experiences and from these observations and the recommendations that come out of this thing.

So NCAI is very delighted to be able to help out and to help facilitate this effort. We're looking for your leadership and your guidance on how we're going to handle it. And we're basically going to be doing it together. You see in our theme here for this convention, you know, it's many tribes, one family. And we've got to remember that. We are many tribes, but we are one family and we have to be on the same page. That's how we are going to win this particular battle in the war we're in. So I thank you. I know you'll have a good workshop. I've got to run off to another one right now on gaming issues, so thank you again, Eddie, for chairing and moderating this workshop, and God be with you.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ron. The way we're going to do this this morning, they first told me they were going to have six chairs and I could get the whole panel up here, but they wound up with four. And what we're going to do is I have the first two presenters on the panel. As Randy and Virginia complete their presentation they will leave the stage and if you would I'd like for the next presenters, which is Ms. Sanchez will be for the Indian Manpower Consortium, would be next. So when they leave if you will come on up to the table while David is doing his. And if we go, we're going to go right by the printed agenda. I think we have one that has not arrived yet, but we'll stay as close as we can.

I'm not exactly sure how much time they've allocated them all. What was the last number you had? Twenty minutes? Okay, so we're -- and I'll try to keep close to the time. I'll try not to cut you off in the middle of a sentence but I will let you know that your 20 minutes has expired. But please, again, let's be sure that we all realize that we're here to gain information. There's a wealth of information among us if we just take advantage of that. So to start today off, I'm going to call on Mr. Randy Blue from the Catawba Nation to start with the report first. Randy?

MR. BLUE: First off I would like to welcome you all to the State of South Carolina and down to this beautiful city of Myrtle Beach. And welcome to our church services this morning. No, I'm sorry. But, generally where I would be at on Sunday morning would be at our church services.

But for my presentation this morning, basically the gist of it is how could they not know. In some of our findings in going out in area in Region 1 we learned quite a few things. One of the first things that we learned was who's to blame for letting the white man come ashore. One of our first visits was with the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, Aquinnah. And we found out that they were the ones to blame for letting the white man come ashore and even helped them to survive. So we can kind of put that blame on them. I used to blame Christopher Columbus for my light skin color and my hair and also my receding hairline. But now I know who's truly to blame. So I kind of put that on them right now.

But also during the many visits that we had with the tribes, we learned that the state government's relationships with the tribal governments in Region 1 varied just as the training weather in the states varied. In the State of North Carolina, the tribal state relationship there is somewhat different from some of the others, especially out west. They know that the Cherokee tribe exists and deal with them to some degree. In Maine, the state relationship with the tribes there is non-existent in some issues and very relevant in others. In the state of Michigan, the state and tribal governments have somewhat equitable relationship with each other. And again, only on some specific issues. In the State of South Carolina, the tribal-state relationship is somewhat apologetic and unknowing. During the visit with the state of South Carolina people that work with TANF, at our tribal offices -- we call our tribal office Long House -- it was found that in the South Carolina's TANF plan is stated that there is no federally recognized Indian tribe in the State of South Carolina.

This was a big blow to us whenever we read this in the plan. Their plan was written in 1996, sorry. We were re-recognized in 1993. How could they not know that we existed?

These are only just a few examples of some of the relationships of tribes and states here in Region 1. And I am sure they are true to form throughout all of the Indian country.

During our on-site visits with different tribes and states, we found that we are not just educating the tribes but we are also educating the state employees working with TANF. Some of the comments that we have heard from them are, I had no idea. Or I had never heard that before. Again, how could they not know? The Indian population in area 1 is somewhat less than a tenth of a percent. But we can make a pretty big stink when we get all our stuff together. And it seems that that is what needs to happen in Region 1. With the tribe's population impact being very minimal and with its smallness in size, it leaves them to be vulnerable to the larger, more aggressive predators out on mother earth.

To overcome the smallness in size, there has to be a creative approach to our plan or a plan put into place. Just as small animals band together or rather, join to fight the more aggressive and larger predators, the tribes in the east region would come out the victors instead of the victims if united with one another. In the east, in order for us to become the victors rather than the victims, we need to become partners and band together instead of being competitors or enemies as it has been in some of our past histories. For this to happen, it seems like the key is to getting our strength in numbers. We need to combine our efforts into consortiums such as what the tribes in California have done. Not exactly like those in California because as we all know, each area and tribe has different and unique special needs. But something similar could be done if possible. If a consortium is not the answer for tribes, then other options need to be explored.

One of the other options that is available that the law allows is doing tribal-state agreements or government agreements. This is where a tribe can contract with the state to provide services with the programs that they already run to the TANF recipients. This TANF law has opened the door to different possibilities to us in Indian country. We need to take advantage of this opportunity that we have before us. Maybe not to run a TANF program, but to explore the different opportunities that this law affords us as federal tribes. For the longest time, and I know that we have all heard this before, that Indians in olden times said the word "how." We no longer say how, we say chance. And not the games of chance, either. We just want the chance to be able to help our people. Again I say, how could they not know what this welfare law can do to Indian country. Thank you for the opportunity I had to speak with you all. Oh, and by the way, it's not you all, it's not you guys, it's y'all. Just remember to say y'all a lot and no one will know that you're from out of town. Kind of drag out your speaking a little bit and they'll think you're from the South. But thanks for letting me give a report on this. Virginia Aymond is going to give some of the cons to TANF as far as she sees it for the people in the east.

MS. AYMOND: I'm not that good with microphones. I have some real problems -- can everybody hear me? Okay. I believe that TANF is part of a mainstream of Indian people. The last several years now, the way Congress has been going, everything that has been coming down is to mainstream each of us. Making us state Indians again. That's -- I see this as another major step that we will have to depend on states for the federal share. And we as tribes are responsible for the 25 percent or 30 percent, depending on what the state share is. There's several issues that affect us as Indian people.

Number one, they are characterizing us in a category and they are labeling us also. I knew that TANF was coming down several, several years because of the process that has started going through. We need to be unified and work together and not fall into the blanket effect. And what I mean by the blanket effect is they put a blanket on the floor and they throw the dollars and then we all go fight for our share. And part of this is going to be taking place. I know in the State of Maine, we have no agreement. They will not talk to us. We've tried to have several meetings on the part of Social Security Act, Title 4E, which is the Foster Care. They told us that they will give us 70 percent, which is the federal share for that part of it, but we will have to come up with the 25 percent. Now where are we going to get 25 percent. And then they brought the question up of the Indian Education and Self-Determination Act, so I just moved away from there.

I think that TANF will also create a lot of child welfare problems, a lot of domestic problems and other problems that are going to hurt our Indian people. I have a real deep concern with TANF. I have been involved form the beginning, and I read every bit of the Federal Register. The states get bonuses, the tribes don't. So we're not treated equally. So I don't believe that we have a government-to-government relationship concerning TANF. Because if we did, we would not have to go through the state. We should be dealing with the federal government. Because we are a sovereign people, we are a nation versus jumping through all the hoops and not having the funds to do it with. It's a very expensive program, especially for tribes that don't have funds or even for tribes that can supplement the state's amount.

So, for me, I see it as number one, some of our sovereign issues because we do have sovereignty. And number two, it sets us up to fail. So we have to be really innovative and do the best we can with what it has. And look at it real well. At one point in TANF we are penalized 15 or 20 percent, and then on top of that, we're penalized another 25 percent. So we are penalized twice. And I had asked John Bushman who makes that decision. He said we do. So with the way things have been going with the state, of course they're going to -- they may penalize us twice. So I have a real fear and a real concern. With Indian country, we see children as creations of the creator. We see women as being very, very sacred. And the state, therefore, is the way they are going to take some of that away. Because those bonuses for children that are born out of wedlock, the more they get off the system, the more some more money comes in for them.

So we're in a total different position because we are a people. Whether the lady is pregnant or not, that child is still a creation of our people. And it's going to affect us. Because we are going to start saying to the people that, don't have any more children. And eventually, down the road, in my eyes, I see that some genocide is going to take effect. So I'd like to thank you all for allowing me this opportunity to be here. I thank Mr. Tullis for being the moderator. And I thank Randy Blue from Catawba. Thank you.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Virginia. Next on our list representing the Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Mr. David Thunder Eagle. Let me ask before, David, excuse me. Has anyone got a question that you'd like for Randy or Virginia to clarify something or to do it? We have a question over here.

As Leland's going over for the question, just one note. I do not have a written report back at the table, but I will have that later. They do not have a copier set up, but it's completely different than the oral presentation. It tells you some of the things that we did do and are in the process of doing.

MS. BROWN: Shirley Brown, Sioux St. Marie Tribe with Chippewa Indians. I don't have a question, but I did want to make a comment about the foster care issue and how we ended up resolving that in our state, which is Michigan. And as Randy had commented, sometimes the state will work with us if -- they'll agree to things. And that's something we're working on in TANF and if they want to. So it's kind of been a back and forth and it has come a long way in the last year.

I'm not real familiar with the Title 4E Act but I was just asking Nancy about that because what our tribe did was pursue a licensed placement agency for children in foster care so that we have a purchase of services with the state. So what that means is we get administrative rate for every tribal child that goes into foster care and then also the money to pay the foster care rate so that we can hire our own caseworkers. And the purchase of service agreements says that if that child is identified as belonging to the Sioux tribe, they must automatically refer that to our own placement agency. So that -- and I guess that was a way that we found to work with the state even though we may not have wanted to, but we have total control over the children that go into foster care and our own workers. And then we work with the plan and the parents and provide the services. And so I think that's an option that maybe other tribes may want to look into because it's about one of the only other angles to get in there to have control over your children once they go into foster care. And it's worked for us.

A PARTICIPANT: How long have you been licensed?

MS. BROWN: Since December of 1985 we've had our own child placement agency. Thank you.

CHAIR: Any more questions or comments?

MR. CUMMINGS: Leo Cummings, Affiliated Tribes. Randy, maybe, has there been any tribes that you've worked with that had any dealings with the state or within their own programming that are unique that has helped their people with welfare reform?

MR. BLUE: As of right now, the one that comes to mind is the Wampanoag Tribe in Massachusetts -- I mean, not Massachusetts -- yeah, that's right, Massachusetts. And they are in the process of -- they are not going to be running their own TANF plan but they are going to be working out an agreement with the state. And the state has been working very well with them and they know that their needs of their people on the nation there. But as to the specifics, I am not sure legally.

MR. CUMMINGS: Yeah, I think that was one thing that would have been very interesting as we went along this morning is finding out something unique and innovative that has happened with tribes where they have met and faced welfare reform for their people through new ways, change.

MR. BLUE: Right. And what's going on right now is with most of the tribal governments, we are finding out that they are not really digging into TANF at all because of the negative aspects and the negative things that surround TANF. You know, as we all know from past, that welfare has a big negative to it. And the people are just not willing to get into.

MR. CUMMINGS: Yeah, I've seen that too, also, that really tribes have not taken on TANF because really there wasn't enough resources.

MR. BLUE: Right.

MR. CUMMINGS: But, working with a state-operated TANF, innovative ways, I think that's something we all need to learn and deal with.

MR. BLUE: Right. That's what we're seeing. That's the key so that we do not have to, as the saying goes, recreate the wheel. That's why we're saying that it looks like the key to this is probably tribal state agreements. And that seems like it's the way to go because of all the data collections that you have to have and the other things that you have to have in place. There's no sense in us having to recreate the things that the state already has had in place for many, many years.

THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, Randy and Virginia. We certainly thank you for your being here. Our time has expired on the first one, so I'm going to turn the mike over to David Thunder Eagle, who will report on behalf of the Cook Inlet Tribal Council.

MR. THUNDER EAGLE: Okay, batter up, Lorenda, you're on deck? Okay, good morning. Don't let Randy fool you. They speak a secret language down here. I was on a plane coming into Charleston last night and this guy started talking to me. I couldn't understand a word he said. Y'all, it's more than that. They have a secret language. And I said, well, I'm from Alaska. And then he started speaking English. This is a picture of Alaska. by the way. Oh, that's not good. It's plugged in. Okay, is this plugged in? That would be something, wouldn't it? I go through all this trouble and have this thing die on me.

Anyway, I flew from winter into summer. And that's a picture of the mountaintops over near Juneau that I saw as I was coming down here. And I called my wife last night and sure enough it snowed in Anchorage. Okay. Get started here in just a second.

My name is David Thunder Eagle. I am the Director of Planning and Education at Cook Inlet Tribal Council, which is located in Anchorage, Alaska. There is about 100,000 Alaskan natives and American Indians living up in Alaska and about 20,000 that live actually in Anchorage, where our tribal headquarters are at. I have two friends here with me today I'd like to introduce, Norm DeWeaver and Bonnie Eastburn. Norm came up to visit us a couple of years ago and I took him to lunch and gave him a free office and he stayed. So we've got Norm all to ourselves sometimes. And the reason I mention Norm, though, he's been instrumental in our project of developing and implementing welfare reform in Alaska. He's been one of our consultants, so he's working for us also, now. There's no free lunch.

And his friend, Bonnie Eastburn, is also one of our key consultants. She was our director of Public Law 102-477, coordinated that program for many years. And then she got consultant-itis and she's one of our consultants, too, but she's doing a real good job. Our third consultant, Dr. Edward Doe, was our main technician developing databases and reporting requirements and things of that nature and writing TANF plans and things of that nature. He wasn't able to make it today. But those are three key people that worked on this with us.

Okay, unlike the lower 48, where individual tribes can run TANF programs, in the law, the 226 tribes in Alaska were not named in the law to be able to run TANF programs, okay? In Alaska, there are 12 Alaskan Native Regional Corporations that were named as eligible entities, okay? And they, in turn, serve the 226 tribes. And it was just a matter of efficiency. Because to run 226 various different welfare reform programs would be very difficult to do. And so Congress decided to award the contracts only to the 12 Alaskan native regional corporations, which are all supported by the 226 tribes and there is one reservation-based tribe, the Metlakatla tribe, on that island. And that is the one single tribe that also, along with us, the 12 regional corporations, that can run TANF. And this is, of course, the law that enabled all this to happen.

The 12 regional corporations are the Alaska Pribilof Islands Association. Their headquarters are in Anchorage but the tribes are on a 1,500 mile arc that go out into the Pacific Ocean. And those tribes are very remote and scattered on islands that would stretch from St. Louis to the Pacific Ocean if you overlaid it on the United States.

The Arctic Slope Native Association, that's in Barrow, Alaska, up in the north slope. The Association of the Village Council Presidents, which is in Bethel. And they serve 52 tribes and about 20,000 Alaskan natives who live in those villages. Bristol Bay Native Association in Dillingham, where all the salmon were supposed to come up this year, it didn't. They serve about 32 tribes. Central Council of Tlingit-Haida Indian Tribes, and that's about 22 tribes down in southeast Alaska, headquarters in Juneau. And Chugachmiut, which is the tribes around the Prince William Sound. Cook Inlet Tribal Council in Anchorage, Alaska. Copper River Native Association is in Glenallen. Kawerak that's up in Nome. Kodiak Area Native Association is the Island of Kodiak. The Maniilaq Association serves the tribes around Kotzebue. Metlakatla Indian Community, like I mentioned. The Tanana Chiefs Conference are the tribes of the interior, the Athabascan Indians and their headquarters is in Fairbanks.

There are huge variations from one part of Alaska to another concerning the needs of welfare applicants and recipients and resources available. In many villages unemployment exceeds 70 percent. There's a lack of employment opportunities. And there's a lot of rural to urban migration. The severity is so difficult in Alaska that it caused an amendment to the welfare reform law that allows any village tribe that has more than 50 percent unemployment to not have to meet those mandatory work requirements, okay. And so that makes it not so bad. But a lot of the villages that are just below that 50 percent and so they've got a tough time. Because there's a lot of places up there with no jobs. It's really difficult to get people transitioned from welfare to work activities.

Now, in Alaska the range that we have got going up there, everything from doing absolutely nothing, to doing state contracting, to doing full-blown TANF. We are doing a little bit of everything. Now Cook Inlet Tribal Council received the ANA Information Dissemination Project. And what I'm going to go through now and some of the problems we are still faced with.

Prior to TANF, a state-wide tribal organization was loosely formed. It's called the State-Wide Single Point of Contact, the SPOT. All 12 regional corporations has a single person that the state contacts in matters of welfare reform plus Metlakatla. And we've been meeting since 1996. Before TANF was a law, before Alaska implemented their welfare reform law. So we were really ahead of the game. And when we got ANA Information Dissemination Project, we had already been meeting for a year on how to implement welfare reform. Because the State of Alaska passed it even before the federal government did. So we were already ahead of the game. So we had a year-long planning prior to the TANF program. And so the ANA Project just continued the process.

We have an Alaskan native welfare reform website which I'd like you all to note, http://www.citci.com/welfare, don't forget the last "i" because if you don't do that, you won't get Alaska, you'll get somebody in California. Somebody took c-i-t-c, so there's another "i" there. Okay. And that is a web page that we developed with the welfare reform ANA Technical Assistance Project. And Norm DeWeaver maintains that for us. And if you want the most current federal regulations on TANF, they are posted on there. You can download them. If you want any kind of information about Public Law 102-477, anything to do with employment and training, anything to do with welfare reform and related programs, it's posted on this very user-friendly web page that Norm maintains for us. And I know that Leland McGee accesses it. Lorenda said last night that she uses it. There's a newsroom, you can even converse with one another. You can get technical assistance from it. I think you'll find it very valuable. And if you don't listen to anything else I say today, that's fine. Just go the web page and you'll get lots of useful day-to-day technical information that you will need if you're involved in running TANF or a state contract of services.

Okay, like I mentioned, we're doing lots of different things up in Alaska. The Tanana Chiefs Conference are the only ones so far that have submitted the first TANF plan in Alaska. And they will implement it January 1. Interestingly, it is only for tribal members of federally recognized tribes in the Doyone (phonetic) Region, as they call it around Fairbanks. If you are a member of a tribe from another area, the state has to serve you. That's the deal that they were able to make. It's a pilot project. And the reason they consider it a pilot project is because the stupid state legislature won't match the funds. We have a dollar-for-dollar match in Alaska, but the state legislature which is controlled by very conservative republicans which seems to be the trend throughout the nation right now, would not give us the match. And it has a lot to do with politics because we have the Indian country fight up there, subsistence fight is still going on. So the politics are really dicey and so they don't want to give natives anything if they can get away with it. But I think this coming year we will get the match. And the reason will become apparent here in a moment.

Other models that are still going on, the Copper River Native Association has written a plan. A plan that we helped write for them with our ANA Project. Tlingit-Haida Central Council is drafting one. The Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) in Bethel, Metlakatla, all of these tribes are probably going to a TANF situation within the next 12 months. One thing that is hindering this is that the Copper River Native Association, for example, only will get $9,000 in administrative dollars. So we are trying to work with them and say do you really want to run a welfare program if you only $9,000 to administer. Sure, you get the money for the public assistance checks, and sure you're going to have to determine eligibility and you're going to have to sanction and you're going to have to take checks away from them if they don't do work requirements. And you get $9,000 to do that. So that's one of the big challenges we have in Alaska. And part of it is because of the state match as well.

Now, at Cook Inlet Tribal Council, what we did back in '96, we started talking about the fact that TANF was coming. We decided we did not want to run a full-blown welfare reform program. We did not want to determine eligibility, we did not want to issue checks and we did not want to go to our tribal members and say you can't have public assistance anymore. But we are very, very good at training, we are very, very good at placing people in jobs. We average 1,500 job placements a year. And so we started negotiating with the state early on, with the Department of Public Assistance, to run a state grant program rather than a federal contract program. With the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program, which is the state version of TANF. We focused on the work first model, which is the model that Oregon started, I think, back in 1992. We sent staff down there to learn their system. We call it the Bridge to Success and we have an 80 percent success rate. And this came with a lot of work. When we first got this program we started it last year in July, it was like a train wreck the first couple of months. My God -- I mean, we didn't realize. We thought we knew what we were getting into. Even though we had been planning for an entire year. But we had to rearrange staff and hire new staff and massage the thing for two or three months until we got all of the kinks worked out. And if you want to talk to me about what that was like after the presentation, I can go into it in great detail. But right now, because of the way we are doing it, we have an 80 percent success rate on our Alaskan Natives and American Indian families involved in our welfare work program.

Our program was chosen as a model by the state for other tribes that wanted to do a participating project with the state for welfare reform rather than doing it with full-blown TANF. And so the very first year -- in fact, we submitted a grant for the proposal to them and it was no Request For Proposals (RFP). We submitted it to them in February and we said, here, write an RFP to match this. And they did. There were lots and lots of meetings and things, though, to pull that off. But that's what we did. We just submitted it, cold turkey. Bam! here it is. And three months later they wrote an RFP to match what we wrote and we were in business. And then they turned around and gave one to Bethel, which is AVCP, one to Fairbanks TCC and one to Tlingit-Haida. Now the reason they did that, it was really cool. They're sneaky. Remember, we're Anchorage, 20,000 Alaskan Natives, Fairbanks, urban, 5,000 Alaskan Natives, Juneau, about 8,000 Alaskan Natives there, I think. Okay. The only rural one was Bethel. The reason being there was 50 percent of the welfare reform public assistance recipients were two parent families.

When you saw those contracts being proposed at a meeting when I was in Juneau, I go, aha, they're cooking the books. It's a numbers game. They virtually ignored the entire rural part of the state. Ignored them. They didn't help anybody in the rural part of the state. The reason being is because if CITC, AVCPTCs all hit high numbers in the urban areas, they've met their goal with the federal government, you know. Because if you don't meet your goal you get sanctioned, okay? You're supposed to have a 40 percent rate in the first year of people in workforce activities, okay. When they contracted with us they said, we want 60 percent. And like I said, we got 80. So we were able to do the job for the state. We were able then, just be concentrating on Alaskan natives in these high-concentrated urban areas, allowed the state then to ignore all of the rural areas, the bush Alaska, it's called. Just ignore them, all the villages, because we were getting so many people to work in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. And then the people in Bethel getting the two parent families. You know, cut them in half basically. Very sneaky. But we saved the state $25 million. And now they owe us. And so they're adding now these other tribal organizations this year. They are going to get their state grants because they now they know they need us.

Now, a lot of the other tribes are still waiting to see what they're going to do because of a lack of the state match. They don't want to go full-blown TANF except for TCC so far. Since there's a lot of large number of isolated villages and lack of resources in those villages, -

-- refuse to use any of our tribal money for child care. To talk about the child care thing, what we did here is refused to use any of our tribal money for child care. We used all of our child care funds that we received, about $1 million a year for the working poor. The people that are not on welfare, they're working poor. If it wasn't for child care, then they would be on welfare. We told the state you are not going to put us into a downward spiral here. So the state is responsible for all child care. And I suggest that if you work out an agreement with your state, you do the same.

Reductions in reporting requirements. Boy, they had a real sneaky thing on us this year. They used the WTW money, the state did. They got WTW money. They took that money and mixed it into the ATAF money. So now all of a sudden they got all of these extra reporting requirements. And if anybody run WTW programs, welfare to work, you know how difficult those things are. You mix them into 477 it's a little easier. You can mix and match. Well the state doesn't do that. And so all of the goofy reporting requirements on WTW, they try to impose on us. And we said no, thank you. And anyway, that's a long story, but we got to keep moving on. I've gone way over my 20 minutes. Like I said, we need to continue the ANA Information Dissemination Strategy Development Projects. We are going to continue our web site. We are going to keep giving Norm free office space. We're going to keep on keeping on with our TANF programs in Alaska.

We really enjoyed the fact that NCAI is taking a leadership role in bringing us all together on this and I appreciate your attention this morning. I'm sorry I went so long, but this is an important issue to us. And if in the future you want to learn any more, go to the website. Also on the back table is my report here in written form. It's five pages long. I brought 200 copies, please take them all. I don't want to take them back, they're very heavy. Thank you, Chairman.

MR. CUMMINGS: (Inaudible) tribe, just one question, David. The natives in Alaska. What is the percentage of that group in relation to the total states TANF caseload?

MR. THUNDER EAGLE: I dont know if I understood your question, Leo. The --

MR. CUMMINGS: The native -- the native TANF caseload.

MR. THUNDER EAGLE: Oh, how many in the state?

MR. CUMMINGS: Yeah.

MR. THUNDER EAGLE: Oh, boy. In Anchorage, we have 26 -- no, 2,000, and we have worked with 800 of those families and gotten 80 percent of those to work. Now youre asking me about the entire state?

MR. CUMMINGS: Yeah.

MR. THUNDER EAGLE: I used to know that. I think -- Norm, Barney, you guys can remember?

MR. DEWEAVER: I was trying to remember, David. I think it's in the vicinity of 35 to 40 percent of the total TANF caseloads in the state. Our Alaskan data, although interestingly enough, Leo, if you look at the two parent caseload, that is more than Alaskan native, a chance to do David's --

MR. CUMMINGS: That -- that makes a lot of difference as you look at the native population in regards to total state TANF caseload. In North Dakota were sitting at 53. In South Dakota I believe it's in the 60 percents right now.

MR. THUNDER EAGLE: Yeah, I remember the percentages, but I just dont know the numbers. And Norm is correct, it's about 40 percent state-wide. it's about 28 percent in Anchorage because we make p about 9 percent of the population. Any more questions?

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, David. You can tell he came well-prepared for his report. Okay, next were going to the California Manpower Consortium, Ms. Linda Sanchez. Good to see you

MS. SANCHEZ: Good morning, I would like to thank NCAI for hosting the forums over this past year. CIMC has been the ANA TANF Information Dissemination and Strategy Development Contractor for California, Arizona and Nevada. Altogether we have been working with about 161 tribes. At this point, we have one tribal consortium that will have inclusive about 12 tribes by the first of January. And several tribal groups in Arizona that are also involved in direct TANF operations.

As the other contractors, we have done a lot of work with information dissemination. At forums, we have held separate forums in each of the three states that we work with. One of the advantages that we had in California was working with the state under the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Programs as the consortium for 52 tribes under the former tribal jobs program. We began a dialogue with them well before the implementation of the welfare reform legislation. And we were able to include specific tribal language in the legislation that was passed by the state in regards to the states welfare reform program. The tribes in Arizona also are very -- have a history of working with the state. And their state relations are fairly strong. And that was advantageous to the tribes in welfare reform. In the state of Nevada, however, we began at the very beginning. What we call Welfare Reform 101. And we have made some progress in the state but there is much work that remains to be done on all three states.

Besides the forums that we held, we have also done a number of cluster sessions, grouping tribal interests and concerns that were presented to us as a result of the forum so that we could meet the specific needs of tribal areas or tribal groups in all three states. We have kept the state involved through all of our efforts in the implementation of this contract. At each of the forums that we sponsored, we not only had consultants and individuals that came in to share their knowledge with our states. We also invited all of the state representatives in California. We were very pleased that the Director of the Department of Social Services took time from her very busy schedule to be at our meeting as well as she mandated that every branch chief of the 11 division within the Department of Social Services in California were at the meeting. They were required to stay for one full day. And it helped the information. Questions were answered, but during that day they also had an opportunity to become familiar with some of our specific needs and it has made the approach by tribes in the State of California for TANF and for some of the state and county services much easier for us.

The State of Arizona and the State of Nevada, we also invited the state Department of Social Services staff and they were very good to work with. And I think it makes a difference in where each of the groups that weve been working with are today. The state of Nevada has hired a liaison. Shes native American and it's -- shes going to play a critical role in what happens in that particular state.

At this time, there is no tribe in Nevada that is actively pursuing TANF. One of the issues that were working on there is just coming to agreement with the state on the number of American Indians that were AFDC in 1994. The state has indicated that they had a total of 212 Indians in the entire State of Nevada. Thats urban and tribal. And so theres a big debate and challenge that we have because the tribes know that that is a significant undercount. But we are working with the state and looking at different approaches on how to bring that count to a more realistic figure. But in the meantime we are also looking some memorandums of agreement with the state, as well as we have a couple of tribes that want to look at their own tribal services plan and re-contracting it back to the state to run for them.

Arizona has progressed very well. They continue to look at TANF for direct funding or for contracting and re-contracting back to the state. And we have a few tribes that we will be working with during our extension of the A&E contract.

In the State of California we have about 42 tribes that are pending a decision on which way they would like to pursue. Whether it's becoming a part of the consortium that currently exists, forming another consortium or directly applying for a TANF grant. We have about 22 tribes that have made it very clear that they are going to not pursue TANF, but have asked that we work with them in their county to ensure that they are included in all the programs and that funds that are made available do flow to their tribal members. And we are in those dialogues at this time.

We did do a comprehensive survey of all of our tribes. And all but 11 of the 161 tribes actually responded and gave us some very good information about where they are, what technical assistance needs. Very specifically that they would like to be provided to them in making a TANF decision or in pursuing a TANF plan. With that information, CIMC did request a nine month extension, no- costs extension to ANA. It has been approved and we will continue to provide those services.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. SANCHEZ: They told me at the beginning that it would be a very slim chance, David. But we had every tribe that needed services actually give us the documentation. And I think there was quite a bit of need demonstrated. I do have a comment to add about ANA. And although were grateful that the funds were made available, it is my understanding that one of the reasons that the funds were not continued to the ANA contractors or for TANF was that ANA felt that we did not successfully meet the expectations because they hadnt seen a significant increase in the number of TANF contractors as a result of our year contracts. And at the closing of our application for the no-cost extension, we did make a statement that we took exception to their perspective in that the purpose of the ANA contracts was, in our opinion, to disseminate information and to develop strategies. It was not to increase the number of TANF contractors. And I felt that all of the contractors had provided the information dissemination and developed the strategies. And that I felt that it was very unfortunate that there were no funds to begin to further those strategies or provide for implementation of a years worth of work. That was very valuable to many communities. And I still believe that very strongly.

We do have a very important role with the states. And in the State of California we deal with 58 counties because we are a county-based/run welfare program. And it varies from state to state. And although a lot of tribal communities are experiencing a big challenge in working with their states in regards to the match and in regards to just coming to agreement on the number of recipients, I believe that we need to look at welfare reform and the opportunities that are included in that legislation for American Indians as an opportunity. An opportunity to change a system that for years has not worked. Not only in main line but in our own communities. And to use our own experience to design what we feel is best for the people that we are responsible for in our communities. And that is both in tribal communities and urban communities.

In working with the State of California, we do have state legislation that guarantees a match. A minimum of 50 percent. We have the tribes making the decision on the data collection and the data that is used by the county in determining their needs. There is a provision that requires the state to provide and make available funding for other programs to support welfare reform in this state. And its very important for us to make sure that even if we think there is no chance that the state is going to work with us, that we make that attempt to get some type of legislation and use other programs, Indian TANF programs, both on and off reservation areas that have been successful in partnerships with their states.

Most states are very concerned about their bonus money or being sanctioned. And we can use that to our advantage. We know our people best. We have a history of running our programs that provides an end result that is positive. And we can take the TANF challenge that we have and make it work for our community and make it work for the state. And I think we should utilize each other and our success stories to open the doors to the communities that, at this point, do not want to dialogue with our tribal groups.

In the next nine months, we have another series of forums that will be on-going. And about 30 tribes that will have a one-on-one with their tribal councils and general councils in regards to TANF. We will continue dialogue with the state in regards to some medical issues and some child care issues that remain unaddressed at this point to our satisfaction. And we will continue with information dissemination. And I would also like to let a number of the contractors here know and the tribes that are here know that CIMC is celebrating its 20^th year in 1998. And weve operated most of our -- I would say 95 percent of the programs that we operate have been through a consortium effort. And in a number of communities, that may be the only real chance that we have to administer the TANF program. And we will make ourselves available to those tribes and to those contractors in helping to design consortium efforts for TANF. We have nine months left in the contract and if we can help some uncompleted business in your areas, we would certainly want you to work with us.

The consortium in California, Southern California Tribal Chairmans Association, currently has nine tribes and will be adding, I believe, three tribes for a January 1 implementation. Having the state legislation in place, working with the county, the consortium there I believe is -- I call it the Cadillac version of TANF in Indian country. We were able to look at data, not only the 94 levels negotiated with the county. Because the county in California makes the decision on all of the welfare programs. We are able to look at historically what had happened in other communities. There were some communities that went into TANF, looking at their programs based on the 94 levels. But when they opened their doors, had more people that came through their doors. Why? Because they refused to go participate in the state program prior. They had no records and werent included in those counts. But they are people and they need to be served. So some of the numbers that were looked at in determining the funding for the grant were not only the 94 AFDC numbers, but also the people that were being served by the food commodities program. The number of American Indians that were receiving Indian health care services that were at poverty level. And then a tribe-by-tribe review of specific data that had been collected. And those numbers raised significantly the number of families that would be eligible from about 170 to close to 450 people -- 450 families. So it does make a difference. And when you have those types of opportunities, you can do much with your program. And it's not going to be something that will happen in all communities, but I think it sets a precedent that can be looked at. And others can utilize that information. We have several documents and manuals that have been produced under the contract. And those are also available. All the tribes in the three states have received them and some of the tribes, I know, have sent or produced manuals with their contracts. And if any of you are interested in any of those materials, our phone number and address is on the handout that is at the back of the room. Please contact us. We would be more than happy to share that information with you. We look forward to working with our tribes in the next year because we have a lot of uncompleted work that needs to be done. And I want to make a comment in closing that Congress this year also passed new legislation which will end the Jobs Training Partnership Act (JTPA). We now have the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). And the Native American Employment and Training Council is in the process of working on regulations for the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act in Indian country.

All of the Native American grantees will be receiving in the next week a paper that will share some background on WIA as well as food for thought in what those regulations should look like and how the Workforce Investment Act can be reshaped with innovative and creative options in regards to employment and training in their communities. We have another opportunity now. We have welfare reform that addresses a specific population in need. And now with the Workforce Investment Act, we can look at the employment and training side in our communities. And I hope that our communities will be stimulated to think about how the employment and training program can reshape the labor force in their communities. And this will probably be our one chance in the next 10 years to make a difference in employment and training. And I cant say enough good things about Public Law 102-477 tribes and what they have been able to do with consolidation and integration of programs.

And in looking at the Workforce Investment Act, we need to look at those challenges and those opportunities in the same fashion as those Public Law 102477 tribes looked at how to meet the employment training related services in their communities. So I hope you will take some time to visit the Workforce Investment Act also. Because we do have the employment and economic development side of welfare reform. If we are going to move people from welfare to work, there are other opportunities and other challenges that we have in our communities. So please take time to review the information thats shared with you and comment. And we look forward to your input.

THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions for Ms. Sanchez? I hear you have one of the largest programs around. Im sure it probably covers more areas than a lot of the state agencies that have a state-wide program. Any questions for Lorenda? Youve done a good job, nobody wants to know any more.

MS. SANCHEZ: Thanks.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Okay. Next we have a report from the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board and Mr. Ed Fox and Ms. Karen McGowan. I dont know whos going to go first but -- Eds going to do it first. Ed's going to do it first.

MR. FOX: I guess I'll sit down and talk. I'm Ed Fox, the Policy Analyst for the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board. And I'm here today with Karen McGowan, the director of our Northwest Tribal Welfare Information Project. I'm just going to say a few words. I did notice that we are running ahead of schedule so I look forward to questions and hopefully a time period where will talk a lot about what we want to do from here on out after we conclude. But we will stay a bit brief so we can possibly do that.

The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board is an organization made up of 40 of the 41 tribes in the northwest states of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. We're a health care organization with a long history. We have 25 years of providing policy analysis, policy development really for national, state and tribal health issues. We're very good at what we do in health and we're somewhat leery of taking on the welfare project. We begged other people to take it on, but when it seemed clear that no one else was willing to or other people put in a positive slant and thought we could do a good job, we went ahead and applied for the ANA grant. I am a health care analyst and one year after starting this project, I'm still impressed by how difficult welfare reform is compared to the health care issues that I deal with. I think health, Indian health particularly, is very complex. The financing is complex, the delivery systems are complex. But believe me, and you know this, welfare is even more complex. The financing is unbelievably complex. The difference between the need and the resources is greater than it is for Indian health. And Indian health is only funded at 50 percent or 40 percent. So that really tells you how bad it is when we thing about providing the social services to the people in need.

You know, I'm humbled in a way about our ability to provide the tribes what they needed over this past year. We did it the way we do our health care. We facilitate meetings, we make presentations to our tribal organizations. We are blessed in the Northwest with a strong regional tribal organization, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. We made presentations to them. We have a history of having conferences so we had our first conference last December and Karen is going to share information about that. And our second conference this August is a wrap-up conference to our project. And that's just the way we do things. We're great -- we're going to meetings in the northwest.

The facilitation. All of the discussions on welfare reform went well. We also wanted to serve not only tribes that wanted to operate their own TANF plans, but we were told early on by our tribe that some of them didn't want to operate a TANF plan in the first year, certainly and may never want to operate a TANF plan. So I agree with Lorenda Sanchez -- I felt like I got her last name wrong -- we never looked at the ANA grant as something that would go out and sell TANF to the tribes. Talk about turning the sow's ear into a silk purse. This was -- you know, we've been even incredibly creative and innovative and northwest tribes are pretty good at that. I think we have five of 15 approved plans. But to think that we would be going out there talking tribes into offering their own TANFs is really an unrealistic expectation on the part of ANA.

But we did try to serve tribes that wanted to do their own TANF plans. And it turned out that that was more of an individual tribe working with the state than it was anything we did. So we take very little credit for those tribes that went out there and worked with states and developed their own plans. They did the work. Maybe we helped them. If we did, I'm glad that we could. But it was very much a single tribe working with a single state and state official to get those TANF plans up and running.

For the tribes that said they didn't want to do TANF plans, we also provided them information and worked with them as they worked with states. Their number of intergovernmental agreements. Washington state probably is the best example where tribes have some very good arrangements with states to make sure there is equitable access. And that is the buzz word from the law. Indian people deserve equitable access to state plans.

We also over the last year worked with other tribal organizations. I mentioned AT&I. The northwest is -- Portland is the headquarters of the National Indian Child Welfare Association. We are lucky that they're in our neighborhood so we have them at our conferences. We have already in existence, in two of our states, we already had regular meetings on social services. In Washington, it's the Indian Policy Advisory Committee. We just presented at their regular meeting. That's tribal folks who are there by resolution from their tribes so they are really good decision-makers. So we assisted them in their welfare meetings. We instituted social service meetings in the State of Oregon and those have gone well. And in Idaho, the tribes themselves work on the agendas for regular quarterly meetings that have been established since the passage of the Act. And we also appeared in both Idaho and Oregon to present information.

We provide tribes with all the information hopefully that they need to think about welfare reform. yes, we do use Norm and CITC's website and in a way, when you see someone else doing a job, you can kind of take it easy sometimes. We have a website, too, that you can take a look at. I do the legislation at our board and we are connecting our tribes to the Internet through a wide area network with a grant from the Commerce Department. We were disappointed that we couldn't get our tribal program people to come in for a training that we set up on the use of the Internet. I think that is going to be very valuable from here on out. And you probably agree, but you need to come to our training. We have a 16 station training center at the Board and we wanted to teach tribes on how to access information to the Internet.

Although it's somewhat discouraging, we always tell our tribal chairs, council people, when then come to a meeting that, no, we'll still get you the information. We don't expect you to dial up and get the information on the Internet. We're not like DHHS' Administration for Children and Families (ACF)which, by the way now tells you, we're not mailing to you, you just got to get it off the Internet. That's not acceptable. But we think it makes it easy and it's kind of a nice filing cabinet to have everything on the Internet. That's where my files are. I don't have to carry as many papers to meetings nowadays if I know I can get on the Internet and download it at Kinkos and print it out. So I think you will want to use the Internet more in the future and I hope Norm can keep that up. But you better train someone, Norm, it's too much work.

We work with the state and federal agencies. I think our project became very well known. Even though we're very critical of the consultation of ACF in developing the regulations, I think we still have a good relationship nationally and in our region. We work very well with the states, I think. Oregon and Washington -- Oregon for sure. Oregon's been great. Washington, big state. it's kind of like the federal government. It's so much, so complex, so bureaucratic that Washington is a difficult case. We have conservative republican legislatures in all three states. You probably think it's not true in Washington and Oregon, but it's true, very conservative legislatures. So we kind of bypass them. We have the democratic and somewhat liberal democrats in the governor's office and running the states. Executive agencies in Washington and Oregon and in both those two states they have documents, Executive Orders recognizing tribes as sovereign and have engaged in true government to government relations in those two states. That's very helpful.

Idaho, it's kind of a daily report and we have folks from Idaho here today that can tell me how we're doing today in Idaho. We've had some good relations and so I don't want to say anything negative. Hopefully we'll draw them into the conversation. At the end, Idaho's a case. And whenever it gets good, they change the people. It's like someone finds out someone is talking to the tribes and they get rid of them or something. And I don't know where we are today. The last meeting was -- no, the last meeting was when we found out they had changed someone, that's right. The 7th we had a quarterly meeting. So we provided information, the law, regulations. At our meetings we had a nice briefing book last December and we provided more information again this year.

We think we're pretty good at analysis. We took a shot at that, on welfare and realized we weren't that good. Or else it was more complex than we could handle, in a way. So I've kind of backed off myself thinking I know a lot about welfare, It's really -- I don't know. it's just too complex but I hope someone can. Dr. Brown, hopefully can produce some good analyses and we'll see what happens on that. But I think we were a little disappointed that we couldn't solve welfare reform. Besides it was more money. Even with more money it would still be terribly complex. So, we -- we -- we were a little disappointed there. I know personally I was disappointed I couldn't write some better analysis for our tribes.

And finally, and I'll stop now. I think we are prepare to plan for the future of welfare reform in Indian country. And we're ready to engage in that debate and I know we have time this morning. I hope you will throw out some ideas and we'll I'd like to say a few things if we still have time when Karen's done about what the role of northwest tribes will be. We're very anxious to learn about what does on in other parts of the country. And we are, as always willing to share any way we can on what northwest tribes are doing if that will benefit tribes in your part of the country. Thank you.

MS. McGOWAN: Good morning. When I got in here early this morning we didn't have as many numbers of folks that we have now. I'm really pleased to see all of you here on a Sunday morning to kind of listen to some of the findings that Indian organizations and tribal folks have been finding in regards to welfare reform. It is a great pleasure and honor for me to be here this morning to share the findings and the activities the northwest tribal welfare information project has found the past year. My name is Karen McGowan, and I am the project director.

I've had the unique opportunity to work with 40 tribes in the northwest, and like Ed said, the states of Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. I have also had a unique opportunity to work with who I consider who I consider very knowledgeable individuals in regards to welfare reform such as Norm DeWeaver, Dr. Eddie Brown, and Leland McGee. We have been able to pull information that they have put together and distribute it to the tribes we serve to keep them informed and educated as to the moving events that go with welfare reform.

We have four tribes in the northwest administering their own tribal TANF programs. As we know, the Klamath tribes in Oregon were the first to operate a tribal TANF program back in July of '97. Also in the State of Oregon the Siletz tribe have been offering their TANF program for a little over a year. Then we have two tribes whose plans were recently approved by Health and Human Services and have opened their doors as of October 1 in the State of Washington, the Lower Elwa and the Port Gamble tribes.

All of the four tribes are receiving state matching funds and one of the proposals made by the Washington tribes is to add an incentive to that -- not an incentive but to add to that matching fund because of the likelihood of an increase of individuals seeking services from their tribal TANF programs. As we know, the Klamath tribe, once they opened their doors, they found an influx of Indian people seeking services from that tribal program. And we know that for a various reasons, Indian people did not participate in the AFDC programs so the 1994 data that is available are that dollars are based on isn't sufficient information for tribes to go by. So the State of Washington has allowed the Port Gamble and the Lower Elwa tribes additional matching funds for an increase in their tribal caseload numbers.

And then, also, the Nez Perce tribe, they submitted their plan and they're anticipating a start-up date of January 1. In addition to seeing the events and activities going on in Indian country as it relates to welfare reform, I also have looked at the so-called success this nation is claiming as far as reducing caseload numbers by over 40 percent in the country. And there are, I guess, opportunities as far as employment and getting families off of the welfare roles and into employment opportunities. But I think, too, there is a lot of negative impacts welfare reform has across this country. I was just in a meeting last week and I live in Portland, Oregon, the biggest city in Oregon and one of the organizations that have been following welfare reform recipients in the city of Portland, they have been conducting surveys. And one interesting that kind of validated some of the findings that we identified at our first conference was the hardship this new law was going to have on families and children and the potential loss of children because families or parents weren't able to provide for that child's basic needs. And one thing that I heard or an outcome from the survey that was --

-- effects this welfare reform is going to have out there in Indian country. We havent seen in the northwest a decline in the caseload numbers with the two tribes in Oregon that have been providing TANF services to their tribal population. And in fact we know that the Klamath tribe, once they opened their doors, they have seen a drastic increase in Indian people seeking services. And what they have had to do is reduce their service population to only serve tribal members in the county of Klamath.

We know in going out and sponsoring conferences and participating in meetings, we know and like Lorenda Sanchez had mentioned this morning, once the tribes build those TANF programs, the people will come. You know, theres that saying, once you build it they will come. We know that thats going to be the case. Also, this past year, Ive really drawn upon a lot of the experiences that TANF programs in Oregon and Washington and Idaho have identified. We know that there are many barriers, but the bottom line is we know that we will be able to offer culturally competent services to our tribal community members once we open those tribal TANF doors. We know that to be true.

On the back table is a packet that we brought with us here to Myrtle Beach and Im going to be pulling information from out of this packet, so if you want to follow with me, Ill be citing findings that we have found in the past 12 months. Our project sponsored two conferences. One back in December of 97 and it basically kicked off the project activities. At that conference, we drew over, I think, a hundred folks. A lot of people from tribal, federal and state programs staff attended the December conference which was held in Seattle, Washington. But on page 3 of the handout, the table, the top of the page, the table identifies some of the issues that were expressed by tribal caucuses at our conference. And its interesting to note that although this was a year ago, some of the same issues are still really relevant. If you go to the first table under the tribal implementation issues, we know that that 1994 data is not good. We know, like I had mentioned earlier, that what the state had as far as caseload numbers for 1994 is not what the tribes can expect as far as what their service population or what their client caseload is going to be.

Another issue is the lack of infrastructure. There arent any start-up dollars to go with tribes once they take on the TANF programs. And there isnt the automation system to assist in generating those checks and managing a caseload. We also know that if tribes choose not to provide TANF services, their tribal members, those tribal members who are willing to participate in the state services are still up against some critical barriers. And some of the things that were noted at our first conference is we need to train. Not only do we need to maintain a dialogue with our state TANF personnel, but we also need to train them on culturally appropriate or cultural competency training in how to work with Indian family. One of the things that was also recommended was the need to hire Indian caseworkers employed by the state programs to provide the case management for Indian people on the state welfare rolls.

Some of the employment barriers. We know in many Indian communities there are little or no jobs out there. And a big part of welfare reform is moving people off of welfare and into work. And when the jobs just arent available out in the Indian communities, that is a very big obstacle for tribes to overcome in how to create jobs and get people trained for jobs. So that was one of the employment barriers identified. We also know that transportation is a big issue out in Indian country. Also reliable transportation. How do you get these folks moving from job site to job site or doing job search or getting from the reservation to the nearest town where there are jobs when you dont have reliable transportation.

Another thing that was identified in the employment barriers was the alcohol and drug issues. We know in Indian country we have some of the highest rates of alcohol and drug abuse. And to be able to have the population that has to go out and look for work, secure work, that population will also need to address their alcohol and drug issues. We, at our August conference, we heard from the policy analyst from the State of Oregon. And the State of Oregon is a leader in moving people off of the welfare roles into work. They have seen most of their client -- their caseloads have dropped and their claim is most of their folks have now secured employment, but those that didnt rise to the top are still the ones on the TANF roles. And a lot of those are suffering some type of mental health or alcohol and drug problems. And that is going to be the most difficult case to work because you will have to address those underlying issues. And the State of Oregon has, through their alcohol and drug programs, increased resources to meet the need of those recipients.

And then, at the final column in the table were the potential social impacts, the forced relocation, the increase in domestic violence incidents, the child neglect due to the parents' inability to meet their childs basic needs. Homelessness where Indian families are going to have to be because they have been sanctioned off of TANF, are going to have to double-up or triple-up in one household. We also know that theres going to be some impacts in regards to child support enforcement. We know with the welfare law, there came the requirement for absent parents to become financially responsible for their children. And we know a lot of our Indian men at home because of lack of jobs or history of alcohol and drug abuse arent able to provide for their children. Or they might be providing for their children but not in a dollar monetary way. They go out and they hunt and they fish, they gather wood and they try to help meet some of those needs of their children. But yet those arent considered as far as the support enforcement regulations go. They look at providing monthly monetary support for that family.

We also believe that theres going to be an increase in teenage pregnancy and a return of many tribal members to the reservations once they become sanctioned off of the state programs. So those were some of our findings from the December conference. Our August conference, the activities begin on page 6, or the highlights are mentioned on page 6. Again, it was a conference that brought together state, federal, tribal people. The August conference, we set the agenda where the conference participants were actively involved in committee reports. What we know, in the past year, in providing TANF services, it isnt all about eligibility, meeting that eligibility requirement, determining if they are eligible or not for welfare. And we also know that all of the state programs have had to redesign how they provide services to their recipients. Caseload management is a lot more intense today than it was back prior to welfare reform. Caseworkers have got to be responsible in designing a program that best meets the need of that TANF participant. So it goes beyond is this family eligible or not. If the family is eligible and there are some barriers, then it is the caseworkers responsibility to refer that family to the appropriate programs to try to alleviate or diminish those barriers.

So we know that theres always been some themes that come again and again. And those themes have been childcare, child support enforcement, adult and vocational training, health care and Indian child welfare. We need in Indian country to not only have an office that is going to be providing TANF services, but to be able to have other tribal departments and resources to wrap around that tribal TANF project. And those were the five main areas in providing those wrap around services for the family.

We spent a lot of time in collecting the information and that information begins in the middle of the packet starting on page 1 to 5. And each report is done individually. Im getting some signs saying my time is up. I just want to mention real briefly that our project also received a 60-day no-cost extension where we received no additional funding from the administration for native Americans. We dont feel that our work has been complete. Theres a lot more work ahead of us and Im not sure where the tribal communities are going to able to get the kind of information that the ANA grants have been able to disseminate.

THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions for Karen and Ed? Im going to let them -- they seem to have such good information I let them run over a little while. We would love to have them respond to questions if anyone has one.

MR. FOX: While youre thinking of questions, could I give you a piece of information thats not trivia? At our first conference in December in 1997, we had tribal members attending fill out a form that documented how much it cost them to attend that meeting, not including their salaries. The cost of travel and hotel and per diem that was a federally approved rate came to over $40,000 for them to attend our meeting in December. So ANA shouldnt think that they are the only ones spending money on welfare reform. Tribes are spending a lot of money attending conferences, attending the state meetings, travel and time. That $44,000, though, was for 32 tribes. Probably about 80 tribal representatives to attend a 2-1/2 day conference. So theres quite an investment on our side in all this and I think that sometimes states and federal agencies think that theyre the only ones spending money. Guess what? Theres a lot more of us than there is of them at these meetings. And we are the ones that are really spending the money.

THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions? If not, we are going to take a 10 minute break. We will come back and well finish up with the reports from the contractors. Ten minutes now, please.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is certainly my pleasure to report -- I mean to introduce to you Dr. Eddie Brown.

DR. BROWN: Thank you. Let me say that I really enjoyed listening to some of the talks this morning and presentations because I think what were going to hear, particularly this afternoon as well, is a real trend on some very key points but very important points. So you are going to see a lot of reaffirmation from some of the study that I am going to talk about and then Im sure this afternoon you are going to hear some more of that because -- and I think thats good. Because not only do we want to say well we think this is going to happen, but we want to be able to say we know these things are happening in some areas. And here are some specific examples. So today I want to talk just briefly.

And before I get started, I always have to do the sales pitch. This is that I am from George Warren Browns School of Social Work in St. Louis, Missouri. When people hear Washington University, they say, oh, Ed, its good to have you in Washington, D.C. And I say, no, my university is not there. And then theyll say its good to have you in the state of Washington. I say, no, its not there. Were in St. Louis. And usually a glaze goes over their eyes in saying what in the world are you doing in St. Louis? And one of the reasons I am there is because of the special endowment. It is the only endowment that a graduate school of social work for a master's degree in social work and a doctorate has for the recruitment and scholarships for American Indians. I have put some of those outlines or information that was developed by students on the back table. And I would really encourage any of you know American Indian students who are wanting to go back and get a master's degree to join or at least call and get some information. We do offer, its a private university, we do offer full scholarships for that. We have a hundred year endowment for such a thing. Weve got, I believe, some outstanding courses now developed as well as a number of research projects ongoing.

Today Im going to talk about one and Im going to try to move as quickly as possible to make it as informative as possible. This is a project we have entitled Welfare to Work: Monitoring the Impact of Welfare Reform on American Indian Families and Children. Its a five year longitudinal study. Now many of you have already heard this morning that it's not just enough to begin to understand what the early impact is, but weve got to be able to track this some way. The idea that -- we know that as people and as the program goes into effect, there are going to be many different strategies used, not only by service providers, but by the families themselves in how they are going to survive. Whether they continue to move from welfare to work or whether they are sanctioned and fall off the roles, what kind of survival strategies are being used. This, because of the limited of dollars that we receive, it was a side of the study is American Indian Reservations in the State of Arizona. When we looked at where we could go that had the most reservation population, that was the state of Arizona with 21 different tribes. And then were saying we wanted to take a look at all of the 21 tribes, but then we wanted to focus in on principally three tribes.

One tribe that was close to an urban are, such as the Salt River Indian Community, one tribe thats kind of semi-rural such as the San Carlos Apache tribe, and then one tribe that represents a very much isolated tribe way out in the rural. And that, of course, is the Navajo nation.

So weve selected those and I will get into that a little bit. The principal investigators are myself and Dr. Shanta Pandey, both from representing the Buder Center for American Indian studies at George Warren Browns School of Social Work. With that, many times, Im going to take just a minute to just give you a little on the context that were working. I think whats important is the idea that we go in just understanding what were dealing with in welfare reform in the types of people that we are serving. And many of you are familiar with this data but I just wanted to mention it.

One is 27 percent of American Indian families, both on and off reservations are headed by female householders. This is one of the highest percentages in our nation. Fifty percent of American Indian families maintained by females with no husband present live in poverty. Forty-six percent of women living on reservations age 25 and over have less than a high school diploma. Fifty-five percent of children living on reservations live below the poverty level. The unemployment rate on reservations averages 26 percent, but if you look at the bureau's potential unemployment, it averages 35 percent. Twenty-three percent of the households on reservations receive some form of welfare assistance. In Arizona, it's even higher than that. Those that were on AFDC in 1996 represented about 25 percent of American Indian population residing on reservation in Arizona.

Now the purpose of our study was to do this. One, we wanted to document the characteristics of American Indian families receiving welfare. Just who are they? One of the things we know right off that over 90 percent of those families in Arizona are single parent mothers with children. So right off we know, and given the earlier figures, we kind of get an understanding right off the kind of situation that were facing on reservation with hard-to-place individuals and hard to move people from welfare to work. We wanted then to also identify community, family and individual level barriers to work in self-sufficiency. And youve heard some of those barriers talked about this morning. About as clients are trying to move from welfare to work, really what are the barrier and are these barriers overwhelming or is there something that can be done that will help an individual move over these barriers and find employment. Then we want to explore strategies used by parents to obtain self-sufficiency. We know that anybody on welfare on has to be creative. And we think that welfare reform is really going to tax the creativity of TANF recipients.

Second, to monitor the survival strategies used by families who are sanctioned or terminated. You hear so much about how welfare roles are drastically being cut within the different states. What you dont hear is whats happening to those people that are leaving the welfare roles. Are they finding jobs, are they maintaining themselves in jobs. But what is really happening and are they any better off than they were before. And then, we wanted to monitor the social and economic conditions on reservations as welfare reform progresses. The methodology which I think is important, and we really struggled with this given the amount of dollars that we had, really what could we do. Quickly we talked about an analysis. One of the things we wanted to do was to analyze the administrative data from Arizona Department of Economic Security which is the social service agency. We wanted to look at BIA statistics on GA, child abuse, the police reports, all of those kinds of things so that we have indications going in what the situation was. And then we wanted to take a look at any information and data that the tribe social services had.

Whats interesting on the first is were finding that state data has been the most difficult to collect. Even in Arizona where they supposedly had some of the best data collected, we find once we looked at that date, it is filled with errors. So its going to be very difficult as we go through. We are also working with the state on how to get better data, do away with those errors so that in the following years we have better information to work with. We have yet to get all of the errors out of Arizonas data and were working on our final report for our first year. What has delayed that, of course, has been the error ridden data from the state and the delay of trying to get those errors addressed so that we can have some more relevant data.

Secondly, we are going to do that through all five years. Also focus groups with current and former welfare recipients. You know, there is nothing that is brought home to me more important about welfare reform than the impact that its going to have on families. Until you have an opportunity to sit down with single parent mothers around the table and begin to talk about what are the stress, what are the challenges that youre facing under welfare reform. And Ill guarantee you, people, after youve done that for a few times, you really begin to get a deep understanding of the challenges faced by these single parent mothers, but also the impact that this is going to have on children. We know that for every adult thats on TANF, you have approximately three children. So it comes out to about one-third, two-thirds. So that as people are sanctioned, as things begin to become more difficult, we know that the pressure on children is going to be tremendous.

Secondly, focus groups with service providers on reservations. We found it was real important and what was talked about today and will be talked about this afternoon is the importance of coordination within the tribe as also with the state. And one of the things in talking with the providers, were interested to see whats happening, how they are coordinating with one another from the employment to the education and training, to job creation and to economic development. We are also going to interview the state department staff that are serving reservations. Like in Arizona we currently have just two tribes that are TANF tribes. And they are going to be working heavily with the state. And we have another tribe that has submitted a plan, Salt River Indian Community. But we know that the majority of tribes work with the state and they are going to be dependent upon the state. So the question -- it becomes very important to understand what are the issues that state staff have.

Were also then, in the last two years. And this is something that were just gearing up to do. Well be bringing interviewers in and begin the training -- to begin individual interviews with 400 women whose families receive TANF. So all of these interviewers will be reservation individuals who live in the community and who will be working and will be going through some extensive training on interviewing. We will be doing that for the next four years. We will also be interviewing with employers of TANF recipients who find work over the next four years as well.

Now, I want to get into the early findings and Im just going to hit, because of time, some very specific things. Some of the early findings, and again, because of the data, most of this early findings represent qualitative data through interviews with service providers on 15 of the 21 reservations in Arizona on which, also this information was substantiated by site visits to five reservations of which we conducted group interviews with state and tribal social service providers and on four reservations with focus groups with current former welfare recipients.

The first is the increased participation on the part of welfare recipients in work, training and educational programs. I think this is pretty much understood, but according to reports from residents as well as service providers, TANF recipients are anxiously looking to enroll in education and training programs. As a result, on all four reservations we visited, there were waiting lists of women wanting to get into GED programs and our JTPA training programs. One state JTPA coordinator said a lot of tribal members are going to work. They see that the federal government is serious about work. Most welfare recipients are complying and this is a positive impact. A local staff member, also a tribal member, commented that TANF is opening peoples eyes. It is going to change the way we think as Indian people. And another worker commented that welfare reform woke a lot of people up.

Going to the next finding, is the psychological impacts on welfare recipients in terms of both motivation for change and stress. I think it's very important that we understand that welfare reform has initially increased the stress levels of welfare recipients. As I told you about those welfare focus groups with recipients, it didnt take very long as we started our first group that immediately became very, very emotional. And when you begin to talk to the women concerning the -- not sure whether they are going to continue to get welfare, not sure what the new policy is going to do, not sure whos going to be serving them, whether it's going to be the tribe or the state, not sure what the time limits are going to be, not sure that if they can find work. Also being faced with very limited education. These meetings immediately became very emotional meetings. And I think at Navajo, they learn very quickly that we had to pass around tissues immediately just as you begin to hear the stories.

The director of social services of one tribe stated, welfare reform has made women scared that they would get cut off when they received the general letter from the state informing them of changes. It will require a different lifestyle for people who receive assistance. One JTPA director noted that while more TANF recipients were requesting services, they were still afraid of change. This anxiety about new TANF requirements also lead to other adverse effects. Another state worker noted that, quote, a lot of people get depressed. They want to drink if they lose their welfare or lose their job. One focus group participant expressed anxiety about TANF when she said, the money goes too fast. People dont live like we do, meaning in remote areas. They dont understand what Im going through. The worlds going to change. Soon there wont be any assistance.

Moving to the next is the 50 percent unemployment rule as well as Arizonas waiver of the 24 month time limit. Both acting in a way as to postpone many impacts in Arizona. Youre all aware of the 50 percent rule. In Arizona, the 50 percent rule impacted nine tribes which really represent about 87 percent of the total population. So about 85 percent or 87 percent of the total population are not going to be impacted by the five year time limit. What the State of Arizona also said, for these same reservations, because they dont have the kind of outreach thats necessary to put people to work, that they were still going to require people to search for work, but they were going to, at least momentarily or in the near future, they were going to waive the 24-month requirement. Now in talking to some people, they said, well, gee, when we heard about this a lot of people started coming in to the education programs, training programs, employment programs. But once the 50 percent rule hit and then the 24 month rule, one individual indicated it was like taking the gun away from our head. And that it cause it some kind of relaxation. And in a way it served as a blessing and a curse. Blessing in that it gave us more time and softened the impact of sanctions. But a curse in that it really took away the immediate need to do something. To really get tribes moving, get the state thinking, as well as getting recipients excited about, gee, we can go into training, we can get some education, theres going to be opportunities to go to work. These kind of things have continually happened in Indian country. And its one of the things thats my concern is that all the time that we pass rules and regulations, we always say, well its too difficult for reservations, we are going to do a waiver. And what that means is, many times, we are not going to face the situation or we are not going to address the situation. So one of the concerns is, that if were going to give waivers, then we need some kind of backup of what support were going to do to better the situation rather than to just leave it as it is.

Moving to the next, the lack of economic development and employment opportunities, especially in rural isolated communities is a very serious problem. One of the greatest barriers faced by American Indian communities in implementing welfare to work is the shortage of employment opportunities on or near reservations. I dont think thats any kind of a new enlightenment. One service provider said, even if we trained everyone we wanted, we dont have enough jobs. Another service provider echoed this thought, the big concern is that we can train people until we turn blue, but if we dont have the jobs, where will we put those people once they are trained. It doesnt just take tribal government to create jobs, but it takes the state, local employers and all members of society. One of the impacts of welfare reform that service providers foresee is that it will, as one tribal planner stated, force the tribe to quit being lackadaisical about economic development. Another tribal planner stated, welfare reform will not work in rural areas without the economic development piece. However, we may be faced with taking capital from other tribal economic development efforts if we have to quote, make work for TANF recipients.

Going to the next, we have the lack of transportation and childcare, our other major obstacles. And again, youre hearing the same through what you heard this morning. Says the lack of support services regarding transportation and childcare are barriers to employment and training on reservations. Transportation was mentioned as one of the main barriers in putting TANF recipients to work on virtually every reservation where representative was interviewed. This is especially true for reservations in remote rural areas. As one state manager reported, the biggest problem is that people tend to live far out from the nearest town. There is no public transportation, their available transportation is not adequate for maintaining employment. A TANF recipient on another reservation stated, my truck is always broken down. The further I go with my education and training, the harder it is. Im not close enough to town and not close enough to stores. My aunt has to take me shopping. I have to go 30 miles for gas. A tribal social service provider close to an urban area stated, our transportation problems are shocking. Were close to the city, yet were still isolated. Its like theres a big wall around our community.

In regards to childcare, all but the smallest tribes had access to come form of childcare whether the state or the tribe provided services. Most communities reported increased demands for childcare in the last several years. In one community, the childcare director reported the demand had doubled in the last two years. Several tribes maintained long waiting lists for services. In one community, there were 60 children on the waiting list with only 80 total childcare slots in existence. The child services that were available were limited in a number of ways. For example, most providers provided only care for children from 7:00 a.m. till 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. weekdays only. While a few casinos provided childcare services to employees, even these services were only available during the daytime, although the casinos are open 24 hours. Some programs placed restrictions on the children they will care for. For example, one family didnt accept children under the age of 5. All the service providers who were asked, stated that childcare services were not adequate in meeting the needs of their communities. They attributed the shortage of services to the shortage of funding.

Going to the next. Individual barriers such as the lack of education, job experience and individual family problems are also evident. Just looking at low education. In one tribal program, 50 percent of the participants had an 8th grade education or less. Some only had a third grade education. Some JTPA programs required applicants to have GEDs before they could even participate in the program. Other JTPA programs offered GED classes, but service providers in several communities said that they did not have enough GED slots to meet the need. An employer training coordinator said that most TANF recipients who apply for his program need extensive assistance with reading, writing and basic math. The majority of service providers describe their available educational services as quote, inadequate. They said they were having a difficult time meeting the increased demands for services because quote a lot of the individuals referred to us are hard to serve. They need the most basic skills.

Regarding job experience. Many of the focus group members had never held paid positions outside of either job corp or some type of community service program. However, focus group members were aware of the importance of the experience or for experience. Let me quote, the employees I see each month, and that is to sign their work activity form, tell me the same thing. You need a GED and you need job experience. Although I have to apply for their jobs if there are openings, I know they wont pick me because I dont have experience. To address this lack of job experience and training, tribal new jobs as well as JTPA are being utilized. The problem is, not every tribe has a new job program or have a welfare to work funding and have to rely heavily on either the tribal JTPA or the state employment.

Looking at basic necessities. Another barrier to work faced by reservation residents is the lack of basic necessities such as telephones, food, fuel and clothing. Of all the focus group participants interviewed, only a few had telephones. Employers are reluctant to hire people who they cannot reach by phone. Most participants reported lacking basic household supplies at the end of each month. In some communities, residents still rely on wood fuel for heating their homes. One woman reported the money I get from welfare is not enough to cover rent and butane. My fuel runs out and we have to sit in the house with blankets over us. This lack of basics also makes it difficult for recipients to care for their families and effectively pursue employment at the same time.

Looking at individual and family problems. Focus group members reported having children with health or behavioral problems which made it difficult to work as well as to find specialized childcare. Some were grandmothers caring for grandchildren because the childrens mothers were not longer in the home. In addition, alcoholism was cited as a problem in many communities by both service providers and focus group participants. As one service provider said, alcohol abuse is a big problem. It impacts employment, parenting, violence, suicides, crimes and other things.

Looking at the next which is very interesting. Lets move that up just a little so you can see that. This was something that I hadnt really thought of but really jumped out heavily in our early interviews. And that is service providers and focus group participants were aware that TANF recipients were often discriminated against by employers due to their gender -- due to gender issues, ethnicity or personal family histories. Respondents perceived that this discrimination in both employers both on and off reservations. So they werent just saying that this kind of discrimination was off reservations, but they said that it was very heavy within the reservation as well. In towns and cities outside the reservations, service providers and focus group participants perceived that American Indians were stereotyped and discriminated against some employers.

One service provider said that in the nearest town, many fast food managers didnt want to hire American Indians. They think we dont know responsibility, commitment or the work ethic. They think we always have emergencies to take us away from work. Personal or family histories of alcoholism were also reported to be a barrier in employment. A social work director said, discrimination is a big problem here. Once youre labeled as an alcoholic, you have a stigma for life. People who know the background of individuals wont hire them. Thats the weakness of trying to work within the community. One woman stated, Ive been sober for three years but no one will hire me because I used to be an alcoholic. Im trying to get back with the rest of the world, but Ive been labeled as an alcoholic.

Moving to the next on increased communication, coordination and collaboration among tribal service providers. Now this is probably one of the most positive things that have happened. As we traveled and worked with tribes, one of the things weve seen more than ever before now is internal communication that has never happened. That is, many times the employment training people rarely talk with the social service people who rarely talk with tribal planners who rarely talk with any type of economic development and job creation or with the tribally controlled community colleges. One of the things were seeing happening is a strengthening communication. People coming more and more to the table across tribal programs beginning to examine how the can put together some type of comprehensive system that can serve clients. Also weve seen a tremendous increase in communication with the state and vice versa. There have been more meetings with states and tribes than there have been in the past and if nothing else, a better understanding of what isnt being done as well as what is being done to service American Indian recipients.

The next is increased opportunity for tribal sovereignty and culturally sensitive assistance programs. Never before, I believe, have tribal governments been positioned --

-- lot of little streams of funding with a lot of little individual programs. And what this allows is some real time for some critical thinking of how we can begin to combine these programs so that we can move people from welfare to work in a more creative way. I think tied to this and you will hear this legislation of Pub. L. 102-477 that allows for funding into a single block grant for training, education and social service programs. The new Pub. L. 93-638 regulations and amendments that make it much more flexible to use those dollars, and then as well as the 50 percent unemployment rule all kind of come together in a way that I think provides an interesting approach for tribes who want to step into this. Even given the lack of funding just through TANF. Particularly if we just see TANF alone and we just see the small amount of money thats there, it is a real challenge. But when we start thinking about TANF money thats available, the new jobs money, the welfare to work money, some of the GA money and adult education. When we start looking at it from that standpoint, then were seeing a much larger amount of dollars that can be used in much more creative ways rather than continuing the individual small programs on reservations.

Moving quickly here, conclusions. It is really too early to draw some major conclusions about survival strategies and tactics. Thats why its important to have a longitudinal approach. But some of the conclusions that we have reached is 1) the impacts of welfare reform are both positive and negative. Positive in motivating heads of households to seek education, training and work and in presenting opportunities for tribal social services. I think that is very, very positive. You know, so many times in the history, most of our reservations, the only opportunity that has been provided us is how do we increase social service programs. There has not been a real emphasis on work, economic development and job creation. Now that emphasis is there and I think we need to begin to ask ourselves then are the support services there to push that and to support that kind of effort.

Negative, especially for those tribes that are rural that have high unemployment, few jobs and few support services because this is going to be a challenge. And as tribal governments that has the responsibility to care for the well-being of their citizens, tribal governments need to begin to take a look at, okay, weve got these challenges, what are we going to need and what kind of restructuring are we going to need to more effectively provide if, in fact, high unemployment. How are we going to do job creation if in fact there are few jobs, how do we create jobs? Or how can we do community service jobs, how can we do subsidizing types of jobs, and how do we then begin in the long range to create long term employment? This becomes very critical in bringing the planning, the tribal planning office involved and your economic development office if you have one involved in welfare reform. Unless we know what the future is going to bring on job creation and the types of jobs that are going to be created and the type of training thats going to be needed, it's going to be difficult to do any type of long range training and planning.

Support services are inadequate and underfunded. In think we all know that. When we look at childcare we need more innovative ways. The gentleman from Alaska this morning talked about why are we using our childcare for TANF. Under the possibility that American Indians have a dual eligibility for childcare and that tribes need to say, well if we start using our childcare for TANF, then thats going to put some of these working poor out of childcare. So how can we make our childcare monies go further? And that is youve got to talk with the state. Theres an obligation and an agreement needs to be made with states on how youre going to meet the tremendous need for childcare.

Transportation is a tremendous problem on reservations that are rural, in rural settings. And you know, a number of different ideas through third party billing, setting up transportation systems on reservations is going to be critical. It makes no difference if you have a job if you cant get to the job. Here again, another thing is that when we look at the welfare recipient, these --

-- the question is tied to that also has been the idea that many of them will have a health or mental health problem. Even in the state of Oregon, they said right now after they cut all of the people, and this is not just Indian, this is a total state, after they cut everyone off, they think at this point theyre saying that I think its 75 percent of those people still on welfare suffer from some type of mental health issue or concern or problem that keeps them from going to work. Now if its that high there, think about how high potentially it could be on reservation. And then think about how we, not only going to create jobs and provide childcare and transportation, but if a person is not ready to go to work, is suffering from an alcohol and substance abuse or is suffering from domestic violence or is suffering from some type of other ailment that keeps them from work, unless we have those kind of support services, and this is where Indian health service and psychological services and some of these other support services have got to be tied in as well to working with the hard to place.

The future impact on Indian families will vary depending on the geographic location and regards to isolation of reservations. We know that, for instance, we work with Salt River Indian Community. Theyre right next to Scottsdale. Our focus groups with those individuals were much different than on the other reservations. Theyre very close to employment, they have a lot of industry going onto the reservation, et cetera.

So those kinds of needs and challenges are going to be different than someone thats in a more isolated area. Some of the early findings that are concerning us about people living in the rural areas are statements of one individual who is saying, gee, if Im going to go to work, Ive got to go to an urban area and I cant take my children with me so Ive left them with extended family on the reservation while I go search for work. Or another statement of an individual who said the pressure and stress was too much to try to work, to get training and so forth so I put my child in boarding school for the time being so that I can meet that need. Both contrary to the reason of why welfare reform was put into place and that is for the strengthening and support of families.

The tribal state coordination is critical in successfully transitioning individuals from welfare to work. One of the things, it doesnt matter whether the tribe is administering welfare reform or not, youve got to be talking with the state. And Ill give you several reasons why. One is the state is obligated and had to sign when they submitted their plan back to Washington, that they would provide equitable services to Indian communities. We will not know if those equitable services are being provided unless we, as tribal governments, sit down at the table with the state and say how are you providing equitable services to us. And one of the things you will find in probably many situations is that they are not. In the State of Arizona they are not and they have waived certain requirements because they cannot provide the type of employment services that are needed out there. So they waived it. When you are asking how many of our tribal members are on the TANF roles and then become really important are also asking your GA program how many of our people are on GA to begin to understand if theres a shift that occurs.

The other thing is to ask the state, what kind of data are you collecting on us as American Indians? At the end of these five or six years, what are you going to be able to tell us specifically about American Indian population? And Ill guarantee you the state will tell you probably they can predict whats happening in the urban areas. They can probably tell you whats happening with Hispanics, or Blacks or Asians, but Ill tell you, when you ask them whats happening with American Indians, very few of the states are really taking any kind of effort or time to take a look at American Indian populations. The tribal governments must demand or at least sit down and agree with the state on what kind of data is going to be collected for American Indians that you can use, not only in negotiating with the state but also begin to take a look in regards to the future impact.

Okay, lets go to -- is that, okay. One of the things again that its very important is the longitudinal kind of aspect. We have just started this. We need data to tell the story about whats happening to Indian families and children. This is one small grant in Arizona. It will not answer all the questions. We know that every state is different and every tribe is different. Right now we only have one grant that is provided out of Health and Human Services. And thats ours. And its a small tiny grant to look at one state and focus on three tribes. What we need, either tribes need to go to the state and say listen, youre getting all of these thousands of dollars to do impact studies of whats happening with welfare reform in your state, what are you doing and how can we work together to make sure that youre collecting reliable, sufficient data on American Indians. We also need to as HHS and the Administration on Native Americans. The Administration on Native Americans had that education and information grant. The question is, how are we going to have any kind of dollars to take a look at whats happening to your tribes and being able to collect that data. I will guarantee you that as we move through these next few years, Congress will be holding hearings in regards to welfare reform to determine how well it's working.

Now we can wait and go back and talk about how sensitive and how our heart feels about how people are suffering in Indian families or we can say weve got not only that, but weve got some clear data that show whats happening and show the need for either some type of administrative changes, additional support or whatever is going to be needed. And I guarantee you, unless we have that in hand given the kind of direction that Congress is going, we will not get additional funds, we will not be able to tell the story thats sufficient to convince people of the need that exists in Indian communities.

One of the things that Ive learned here if nothing else, is the opportunity of getting out and talking with welfare recipients and to really begin to feel the pain that single parent mothers face. And if theres one thing that has benefitted me of the importance of the study that we are doing and the importance of the story that we have to tell of whats happening. Now I dont know how many of you have been raised in single parent families. I dont know how many of you have been raised on welfare. But if you have, youll really get an understanding that of the myth and the stereotype that 1) women do not want to work, that women prefer to stay in welfare. That children somehow get through that they have enough, et cetera. Youll find that many of those are myths that have to be addressed and that they can only be addressed by effectively moving people from welfare to work.

Okay, any questions after that last presentation? Yes, sir. There is a microphone there for you. This is a gentleman I havent seen in so long I hardly recognize him, because his hair has turned so beautiful white.

QUESTION: Why isnt any of your research focused on the incomes of Indian families who have transitioned from welfare to work? Because it seems to me if you transition to work and youre at a lower income than when you were on welfare, not a lot of progress has been made in terms of actual family economics. It could make you in a worse situation than when you were on welfare. Because you couldnt pay for the services that you once got. So I was curious why that focus wasnt in your study.

DR. BROWN: No, and an excellent question. One of the things were finding is that people go off of welfare or they go to work, theyre still -- were not talking about rocket scientist jobs here, were talking about minimum wage jobs working in fast food industry, et cetera. which do not meet the -- does not give enough money for a person to get off food stamps, to be able to pay for childcare, et cetera. So in many instances you will find welfare people moving off of welfare into work, but still earning less money. And the question is incentive. And yes we are going to be looking at that. This next week and a half well have interviewers --

One of the things that we will be talking to them is the salary that they make and compare that as well as we will be talking to their employers in regards to their income as well. So we hope to look at that, were still making adjustments to our questionnaire to try to get as much data. Again, wed like to do a much thorough study and a much more in-depth approach but we think weve got that covered. But thats a good question and Ill make sure when we go back to take a look at that. Had a question in back.

MR. CAGEY: Yeah, Henry Cagey, Chairman of the Lummi Nation. I think, Dr. Brown, you mentioned data I guess and we just spent a lot of time on the Hill here these last couple of weeks on different issues from health care issues to self government issues. But I think where were really missing the boat with Congress and the people on the Hill is the data. And welfare reform is something that ties into everything that we do as tribes. But how do we begin to start moving towards data and developing a proper way to gather data for all the tribes that is consistent. We have IHS That has different data, we have BIA has different data, Department of Ag, Department of Health all has different ways to gather data. We have no way of gathering it unless you know the right people to talk to and the right agency to talk to or the right tribe to talk to. Is that were getting our butt kicked, I guess I should say, up on the Hill because we have no data to back up what were saying. And welfare reform is a good example where we need good data to defend some of the things that Congress is doing to us.

DR. BROWN: You know, one of the things is when this program first came out, we were either in Phoenix or Tucson at NCAI conference and we approached the Assistant Secretary saying well we know that annually $15 million is appropriated for evaluation of welfare reform. And then we said what is the Indians portion and how do we get that? And the response was, its all gone. it's already been all committed to the state. Theres no money left. And so that was a concern. And we then waited to see what was going to happen and then this bone was thrown out, which literally is what it is, to say well, well throw it out. With everybody competing against everybody else wasnt just for American Indian or whatever but just to do studies looking at different area. So we got that. We still dont have a national study.

I think out of the Kaiser Foundation came up with some dollars to do, and youll hear this afternoon, I think things that will continue to reinforce what we have been talking about today in regards to the need for some type of longitudinal study. I think one of the things of recommendation that ought to come out to NCAI is what is the effort. Recently the welfare to work money came out, that was placed out. There was an RFP put out for a major study on how welfare to work money was going to be utilized. They did an Option A attached to that saying, oh, by the way, if you have an interest, you can also write a grant to look at the Indian tribes. We got involved in that and we did submit a grant as an Option A with one of the large contractors. Our concern was why did we have to go with one of the large contractors. And lo and behold, the grant was submitted, we werent successful in getting it with that large contractor. Another large contractor got it.

But I think, you know, at least theres one other element out there. But the question is, what has been and what will be the involvement of tribal governments in ensuring the research thats being done in there and how can it be tied in.

The other is, you know, like you say, theres a great diversity. One of the things that we need to look at is each tribe needs to be working with their --

-- is collecting data. In some ways they have tied with some evaluation company thats doing an evaluation on the impact of welfare reform in their state. You need to be asking, particularly those of you that have large populations in those states about what the state is doing to collect data on American Indians and what theyre going to be able to tell you on that impact. I think it's going to be very, very important. The other is, we continually need the coordination.

MR. GOBIN: Hi, my name is Steve Gobin from the Tulalip tribes in Washington State. And I had a question on your focus groups. I didnt hear you say anything about child support enforcement and thats a big part of the federal TANF program. And also I wanted to make a brief statement on working with your state. The states are -- a lot of what the state in Washington is doing is geared not so much now towards getting people onto TANF, but on working on wage progression and getting people that are currently in jobs, that got their jobs under the TANF program back into some sort of training programs so that they can progress in their jobs and increase their wages to have a livable wage for their families. But support enforcement issue, I think, is important and I dont think it's been properly addressed by Indian country yet and were going to need to take a look at it.

DR. BROWN: I agree with you. Let me just tell you, right now there are two basic approaches in discussing work and moving people from welfare to work. And theyre kind of at two ends of the continuum. One is work first. The states that have taken this approach has said, it doesnt matter, lets just get people into jobs. Were not even going to look at the level of jobs, what the pay is, lets just put them to work. By putting them to work theyll get experience in working, et cetera. And then theyll be able to move up the ladder. The other end of the continuum is what you call a human -- a capital development approach that says, no, what were going to do is provide training and education first so that as people go into a job, they can make sure that theyre getting the best possible job that they can given the training and education. Its going to be interestin