ncaidoclogs.jpg (4136 bytes)
NCAI

A Comprehensive Review of NCAI's Efforts to Address the Impacts of
Welfare Reform in Indian Country

Presented to:
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
Briefing on Welfare Reform in Indian Country
March 15, 1999 Washington D.C.

Overview

In the Summer of 1996, the 104th Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193), more commonly referred to as Welfare Reform. The following year, the 105th Congress technically amended portions of the welfare reform law and established a Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program, as part of the spending provisions of the historic Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33). The result of these laws is an unprecedented change in the way federal welfare assistance is provided to individuals, children and families living in poverty throughout the United States. These new laws exact broad-sweeping changes in federal entitlements such as: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), now a discretionary block grant to states known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which mandates work participation requirements; Food Stamp eligibility; Medicaid and Medicare program delivery; child care and other children's support programs; and a host of other welfare related assistance programs and services. Devolution of most of these programs to states and often, in turn, to local governments has alleviated the federal government of most of its fiscal and jurisdictional program responsibilities. Federal funding for most of these programs is now discretionary in nature as well, with spending authority block-granted directly to the states.

The impacts of welfare reform on this nations' poor are monumental. However, in Indian Country, where tribal communities historically suffer the highest levels of poverty and unemployment in the nation, those impacts are proving to be devastating. Few provisions in the law protect, or even address, the unique status and needs of Indian Country. The treatment afforded to tribal governments under the new law, as compared to that of the states, is extremely disproportionate. And yet Congress as well as the Administration are compelled to do little, if anything, to help tribes achieve the adequate fiscal, economic and programmatic status necessary to counter the impacts of these laws and policies on their tribal communities.

Many within the Congress and Administration tout opportunities afforded to tribal governments under the welfare reform law, such as the ability to operate their own tribal TANF plan independent of state and local government intervention. Unfortunately, the reality is that the resources necessary to develop the administrative and physical infrastructure for successful TANF implementation are not available to most tribes. For example, under AFDC, states were required to provide matching funds of up to 75 percent of the federal assistance dollars they received to run state programs. This requirement, coupled with more than sixty years of federal subsidies and free technical assistance to states in developing AFDC program systems created an excellent foundation for the success of state TANF plans. In absence of the federal benefits that states enjoy, tribes are at an extreme disadvantage in implementing their own TANF program.

Also under the law, tribes can administer their own welfare assistance programs through the implementation of a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) approved tribal TANF plan, however, states are not required to provide much-needed matching funds to those approved tribal TANF plans. This lack of basic start-up support makes it virtually impossible for most tribes to assume welfare assistance program responsibilities unless the state voluntarily contributes matching funds. According to the welfare reform law, tribes are only guaranteed the federal dollars expended on those identified tribal populations under the FY1994 AFDC program. The realism of operating a tribal TANF program is that tribes are now offered the opportunity to assume highly expensive welfare program responsibilities to meet the needs of their increased welfare populations, with roughly half of the funding that the states needed to operate those same programs, and with little or no technical support from either the state or federal government. Unless a tribe already has the economic resources necessary to devote to such a program, it makes little fiscal sense for that tribe to assume such costly responsibilities under current statutory and regulatory impediments. Tribes that do enjoy such economic resources, in most cases, have little in the way of a welfare population to be concerned about.

Welfare reform also subjects TANF recipients to strict work participation requirements in an effort to force habitual welfare recipients into the work force. Under federal guidelines, an individual's TANF payments will be provided for a period of not more than two consecutive years, with cumulative lifetime payments capped at a five-year maximum. States can impose even stricter requirements if they choose. There is a tribal provision in the law which allows an Indian adult to deduct from their five-year cumulative limit any time living on an Indian reservation as an unemployed person, so long as that reservation community has a reporting period unemployment rate of at least 50 percent. For tribes that can document a 50 percent unemployment rate throughout the entire reporting period, this is a well-suited provision. However, most tribes cannot meet this requirement, showing instead a fluctuating unemployment rate hovering just below 50 percent, due mainly to seasonal or temporary employment on their reservations. To a single Indian mother with children under her care living on a reservation with a 38 percent or 45 percent unemployment rate instead of a 50 percent unemployment rate, the difference in the quality of life for her family at any of those slightly varying unemployment levels is difficult to discern. The bottom line is that single mothers with children in their care will continue to make up the majority of unemployed populations on Indian reservations. Without adequate jobs, education, vocational training and family support services, it is impossible for single mothers to seek and secure employment opportunities, on or off the reservation, without literally abandoning their children.

Unfortunately, welfare reform does not address the underlying cause of unemployment on Indian reservations -- the lack of jobs. Creating economic development opportunities in Indian Country, which in turn leads to sustainable economies and jobs for unemployed Indian parents, is the real issue that the tribes, the Congress and the Administration need to address more vigorously. It's not a lack of motivation on the part of the parent to seek employment, for no parent who truly cares about their children wants to continue to live in poverty.

 

Indian Country's Response to Welfare Reform

Tribal leaders have responded to the enactment of welfare reform with great concern. They have noted the enormous impacts welfare reform will have on their communities as well as changes in the law that must occur in order to reduce those impacts. Tribal leaders have also mandated that NCAI make a top priority of monitoring national legislative and policy developments surrounding welfare reform. To date, NCAI has hosted national tribal welfare reform meetings and forums in Phoenix, AZ, Seattle, WA, Washington, D.C., Portland, OR, Green Bay, WI, and Myrtle Beach, SC. At each of these events, federal and state agency officials have joined with tribal leaders to discuss welfare reform's impacts on Indian Country, as well as steps that the tribes, the states and the federal government must take to ensure that tribes are fully included in welfare reform implementation processes.

NCAI facilitated a daylong seminar on welfare reform on October 20, 1996, at it's 53rd Annual Session in Phoenix, AZ. Tribal welfare and social service program experts from throughout Indian Country provided tribal leaders with a thorough review of the immediate and long-term impacts that welfare reform would present. Tribal leaders were also given detailed explanations of the law's major provisions. Following this seminar, numerous resolutions were adopted by NCAI's General Assembly at the end of the Annual Session in Phoenix, establishing the direction NCAI would take in advocating for changes in the new law at the national level.

Immediately following the NCAI convention in Phoenix, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), in conjunction with NCAI, hosted a national tribal leaders meeting in Seattle, WA, focusing on the implementation of welfare reform in Indian Country. This three-day meeting, held October 29-31, 1996 brought together tribal leaders, tribal level program experts, and state and federal officials to continue discussions begun at the NCAI convention the previous week.

The Seattle meeting was also utilized by tribal leaders to develop the National Tribal Leaders Statement on the Implementation of Welfare Reform in Indian Country, commonly referred to as the "WR-TLS." This statement was a consensus effort by tribal leaders in attendance at the Seattle meeting to address many of the immediate concerns over the new law's implementation in Indian Country. The WR-TLS called for changes in the law to foster equitable treatment of tribes wishing to participate in direct implementation of welfare assistance programs. NCAI completed the following activities in accordance with the WR-TLS.

1) Supplemental Funds for Tribal TANF Programs - provides tribes operating TANF plans funding levels equal to those the tribal welfare population received under AFDC.

2) Availability of TANF Loans to Indian Tribes - clarifies current law making Indian tribes with tribal TANF programs eligible for federal welfare program loans. This amendment was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

3) Tribal Development Fund - establishes a "Tribal Development Fund" providing equal access for tribes to contingency funds, program bonus awards and technical assistance funding, currently available only to states.

4) Disregard of the 60 Month Time Limit on Tribal TANF Benefits - allows time spent by an Indian family, living on a reservation, to be disregarded from the 60-month time limit on TANF benefit eligibility; redefines "Indian Reservation" to include Indian communities in states such as Alaska and Oklahoma; eliminates the "one thousand (1000) person" population requirement of a reservation in order for families enrolled in smaller tribes to qualify for the time limit disregard; and calls for the use of the "best available data" in determining population and unemployment levels a reservation must experience to qualify as a time limit disregard community. This amendment was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

5) Tribal Determination of BIA/GA Program Payment Levels - provides tribes with more control and flexibility over the spending levels and spending authority of the BIA's General Assistance (BIA/GA) program to help relieve the impacts of welfare reform on their communities. The BIA is currently revising their tribal General Assistance regulations, however, tribes have yet to be assured that such revisions will reflect this change.

6) Cooperative Agreements with States over Child Support Enforcement Functions - allows tribes an option to enter into cooperative agreements with the states to use state procedures and guidelines to supplement a tribal court system in operating tribal child support enforcement programs. This amendment was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

7) Direct Funding for Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs - allows tribes operating Child Support Enforcement (CSE) programs to receive direct funding from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Although this amendment was combined with tribal amendment six and included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33), the Administration has yet to promulgate regulations and refuses to release such funding until those regulations are in place.

8) Assurance of Equal Consultation with Tribes over State Plans - assures that tribes receive equal consultation surrounding the design of welfare services under state plans.

9) State Option to Exclude Tribal Work Program Participants - allows states to exclude individuals served by a tribal work program from being calculated in a state's work participation rates. This amendment was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33)

10) Reporting Requirements for Tribal TANF Programs - allows the data collection and reporting requirements associated with operating a TANF program to be modified on a case-by-case basis to adapt to a tribe's capabilities.

11) Tribal Inclusion in Secretary's National TANF Program Studies - mandates the Secretary to conduct research on tribal TANF programs as well as state TANF programs, including information on potential benefits, effects, and costs of operating different TANF programs.

12) Tribal Retro Cession - allows a tribe to retro cede a tribal TANF grant back to the Secretary, and discontinue operating a tribal TANF program, if preconditions identified in the tribal TANF plan (i.e., infrastructure improvement, technical assistance, job opportunities) do not exist. Language on retro cession of a tribal TANF plan back to state authority and control has been included in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on tribal TANF/Native Employment Works (NEW) programs set for final promulgation on November 22, 1998.

13) Equitable Assistance to Indians under State TANF Plans - enforce state requirement to provide equitable services to Indian individuals not receiving assistance from a Tribal TANF Program. A few states have complied with the law and provided equitable access to Indian individuals under their state plans. However, this requirement carries no enforcement provision under the current law, allowing states to disregard providing equitable assistance to Indian families under state plans.

14) Tribal Appeals - allows Tribal governments operating TANF programs, access to an appeals process over adverse actions by the Secretary similar to the process available to the states.

Since the February 1997 amendments' package was delivered to Congress, tribes have identified additional impediments under the law that require legislative attention. They include the following:

I) Ability of Tribes to Retain "Carryover" TANF Funds. This is a major issue for all the TANF tribes and tribes considering TANF. It is unlikely that the DHHS will reverse its position taken in the Proposed Rules, (based on its legislative interpretation that Congress did not intend to allow tribes to carry over funds even though states are permitted to do so), absent a legislative fix. Such a fix would not require new funding and could be argued as a matter of oversight in drafting the law.

II) Reauthorization of the Tribal Funding in the Welfare-to-Work Program, Including an Increase in the Amount of Tribal Set-Aside Funding and a Relaxation of the Rules. The Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program was authorized for only two years, FY1998-99. The tribal set-aside is only 1 percent of the total WtW funding. The complexity of the rules and the targeting provisions have made it difficult for tribes to take full advantage of this money, which is the only new source of funding to enable tribes to provide employment services to TANF recipients. The Administration is asking Congress for a one year extension of the Welfare-to-Work program, with a funding level of $1 billion. Reportedly, the Administration is considering an increase in the tribal set-aside under WtW from 1 percent to 3 percent, thereby increasing the tribal share to $30 million for the upcoming fiscal year. Congress is urged to support this initiative.

III) Distribution of Child Support Collections to Tribal TANF Programs. This is a major issue for many, if not all, of the TANF tribes. With or without some form of state match, such collections are a potentially important source of support for tribal TANF programs. The issue does not involve any new funding, but may require clear statutory authority to insure that tribes receive such collections from absent parents of tribal TANF clients.

IV) Treatment of the Tribal TANF Program as a Pub. L. 93-638 Program for Tribal Contracting Purposes, Including Payment of Contract Support Costs. This issue is currently before the Federal District Court in Phoenix as a result of litigation initiated by the Navajo Nation over the DHHS Secretary's initial decision to refuse tribal 638 contracting of TANF. It should be noted though, that any legislative action on this issue brings with it the potential of raising broader questions about the scope of 638 contracting. Unless legislative amendments are narrowly construed, such actions could open up the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act to other amendments with currently unknown and potentially uncontrollable consequences.

V) BIA's Revision of 25 C.F.R. Part 20, Financial Assistance and Social Service Programs. The revision of the BIA social service regulations has not been the BIA's most timely and inclusive effort. In fact, as recently as June 1998, the Bureau stated for the record that they would plan to hold a series of consultation sessions with tribes throughout Indian Country. Tribes asked for more, including the establishment of a tribal working group to help facilitate a true negotiated rule making process (neg./reg.) over the revision of these regulations. To date, no appropriate consultation with tribes has occurred over the proposed revisions to Part 20. The BIA has yet to officially announce any planned consultation with tribes, and, although promised much more, tribes will probably have to resort to filing written comments on these revisions during a 30 or 60 day public comment period, as part of a standard regulatory promulgation process. To make matters worse, it is reported that the latest draft of the BIA's proposed social service regulations appear to eliminate General Assistance (GA) as a safety-net program of last resort. If an individual is sanctioned from a state or tribal TANF plan due to a noncompliance, even noncompliance with state work participation requirements due to a lack of available jobs, he or she may be ineligible for GA.

Most social service experts familiar with Indian Country concur that once Indian families reach their TANF eligibility time limits, or exhaust their TANF benefits completely, they will have no choice but to turn to the tribe for support services, including General Assistance, to meet many of their basic needs. Considering the federal government's continued under funding of the GA program, which in most cases is the only form of cash assistance available directly from the tribe to its members, concerns over the future of poor and needy families in Indian Country take on a whole new urgency. In efforts to address these concerns, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in conjunction with the NCAI 1998 Mid-Year Session in Green Bay, WI, held a tribal introductory session on the proposed draft revisions to the GA regulations. As noted above, the BIA promised tribes at this session that they would plan a series of consultation sessions with tribal governments in the coming months throughout Indian Country. However, the latest unofficial report from the BIA is that one consultation meeting may be held on April 15, 1999, in Minneapolis, MN, prior to an NPRM on GA being published in the Federal Register.

Per NCAI Resolution EC-99-001, tribes have concluded that anything short of full consultation with Indian Nations over proposed changes to 25 C.F.R. Part 20 is unacceptable. As a matter of principle, such lack of full and deliberate consultation with tribes violates long accepted government-to-government relations established between the federal trustee and Indian tribes via treaties, statutes and executive orders. Executive Order #13084 further supports this policy by calling on all federal-level departments and their agencies to develop an improved consultation and negotiation's process with Indian tribes over the promulgation of federal regulations that effect them.

Indian Country's effort to extend the government-to-government relationship beyond the confines of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS), comes at a critical time when Indian programs and service functions are rapidly expanding into other federal agencies. These newly targeted agencies will undoubtedly look to the BIA as a model to develop their own tribal consultation and negotiation policy. Recognizing the potential BIA role model status makes the BIA's lack of tribal government consultation over the GA revisions extremely troubling.


NCAI Welfare Reform Forums

The collecting and sharing of information is vital to a better understanding of the true social service needs in Indian Country. In NCAI's efforts to address these and other welfare reform issues, a series of national welfare reform forums were conducted in 1998. Transcripts and documents associated with these forums have been generated, collected and made available to tribes as part of NCAI's role as a national information clearinghouse on tribal welfare reform. These documents may be reviewed and downloaded from the NCAI web site at: http://www.ncai.org. The following is a brief description of each of these forums.

i) On Saturday, February 28, 1998, NCAI held the first in a series of national forums to address the impacts of welfare reform in Indian Country. The event titled Welfare Reform Implementation in Indian Country: A National Forum addressed five major topics including tribal TANF plans, job creation and job training, federal/state/tribal partnerships, children and family support services and impact data collection methodologies. Olivia Golden, Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provided the keynote address to tribal leaders, council members, program directors, as well as state and federal agency officials in attendance. Her message was clear; states and the federal government need to work more closely with tribes struggling to conform with welfare reform and improve the quality of life for their people at the same time. Participants throughout the daylong event reiterated the Assistant Secretary's sentiments and pledged to work together in making welfare reform work to the benefit of Indian Country.

ii) On Thursday, April 23, 1998, NCAI held its second national welfare reform forum in Portland, Oregon. This forum focused on the impact of welfare reform on tribal social service programs. Tribal leaders, program directors and other tribal social service experts, along with federal and state government representatives, addressed a myriad of social services and safety-net support programs needed to move cash assistance recipients off welfare and into the workforce. Issues included: housing assistance; transportation needs; alcoholism and substance abuse; domestic violence; suicide prevention and mental health concerns; emergency family assistance; children's and elders issues; and, welfare reform's unique impacts on tribal Medicaid and Medicare recipients. Although this forum provided little in the way of immediate solutions for the growing social service needs in Indian Country, it did bring to light many underlying issues that had yet to be discussed at a national level. With the information shared at this forum, short-term and long-term strategies can now be better developed that address the full range of social service needs associated with welfare reform.

iii) On Sunday, June 14, 1998, as part of its 1998 Midyear Conference in Green Bay, Wisconsin, NCAI hosted its third national welfare reform forum. This event addressed a range of issues surrounding employment responsibilities under the welfare laws. Topics included: job creation; economic development; infrastructure renovation; adult and vocational education; and, the experiences of both TANF and non-TANF tribes in the area of employment needs for welfare recipients. Economic development and the creation of jobs for tribal work forces are considered the key to alleviating the impending impacts of welfare reform on tribal communities. The information shared at this forum by leading experts in the employment and job training arenas is critical for tribes in the development of economic opportunity, job creation and work force development plans necessary to serve currently unemployed tribal members.

iv) NCAI's fourth welfare reform forum was held in conjunction with it's 55th Annual Session in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Reports on research and data collection activities surrounding the impacts of welfare reform in Indian Country were shared by a diverse group of Indian organizations working under various agency and foundation grants and contracts throughout 1998. This forum highlighted the fact that evaluation of the impact of welfare reform on Indian communities, whether tribes are served by tribally-administered or state-administered TANF programs, is crucial to the well-being of Indian people. Tribes need data, concrete statistical information, about the impact of welfare reform in order to move Congress to affect any legislative amendments to mitigate welfare reform provisions that are harmful to Indian communities. Of further concern is the government-to-government relations between tribes, states and the federal government. Federal and state governments persist in their lack of acknowledgment of and respect for the sovereignty of tribal governments. Tribal, federal and state commitments to enhance and strengthen government-to-government relationships must be obtained and upheld if improving the quality of life for impoverished Indian families is to occur.

As part of its General Assembly sessions in Myrtle Beach, NCAI hosted a panel on Welfare Reform. The panel included tribal leaders, program administrators, organizational representatives and federal officials addressing the present and future impacts of welfare reform on tribal communities. Perspectives from both TANF and non-TANF tribes were conveyed, along with a collective discourse between federal, tribal and organizational leaders surrounding other welfare reform issues. This dialogue is also available by contacting NCAI with such requests.

 

W. K. Kellogg Foundation: Devolution Initiative

To help meet its challenges in fully addressing the impacts of welfare reform on Indian Country, NCAI was recently awarded a three year, one million dollar grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Under this grant, the scope of NCAI's efforts in the area of tribal welfare reform will begin to address the full range of auxiliary issues necessary to convert welfare dependent populations into self-sufficient and economically productive communities. NCAI is one of 19 grantees that Kellogg has funded under their new Devolution Initiative, which seeks to take advantage of current devolutionary trends, create an objective information base which is relevant and useable by a variety of policy stakeholders, and explore ways to engage citizens in public policy processes and decision-making.

NCAI will focus on two of the five Kellogg focus states (Washington and Wisconsin), as well as gather information from and disseminate information to, all tribes nationally. The NCAI devolution grant provides for multiple areas of work, including:

A) networking/coalition building with other national and state non-Native governmental, professional and advocacy organizations;

B) serving as an information clearinghouse and technological information service provider, including identifying and sharing model tribal integrated social service programs that may be adaptable for use by other tribes;

C) advocating on behalf of Indian tribes by continuing to foster direct consultation and negotiation between tribal governments and federal/state agencies implementing and overseeing devolved programs;

D) partnering with tribal colleges and national organizations to develop a tribal college curriculum on welfare reform, devolution, and preparing tribal members for being productive members of tribal communities in this new environment;

E) assisting in developing and advocating for uniform tribal data collection efforts; and,

F) conducting an intensified public education campaign targeting non-Native organizations; Congress; the Administration; and the general public.

Improvements in the actual implementation of state and local government welfare reform plans in Indian Country must come from state-local-tribal government negotiations over the state's delivery of those programs and services in tribal communities. Though principally, tribes have been somewhat reluctant to enter into negotiations with states and local governments over issues that are a part of the federal-tribal trust responsibility, this current era of devolution does not protect or even recognize such federal responsibilities. Until changes in law and policy reaffirm the responsibility of the federal government over sovereign Indian nations, it is in the best interest of tribes to achieve agreements with the states over the implementation of welfare reform in American Indian and Alaska Native communities.


NCAI Welfare Reform Task Force

During the Myrtle Beach Annual Session in October 1998, NCAI established a national welfare reform task force as called for in NCAI Resolution #GRB-98-044. At NCAI's request, tribal leaders submitted names of candidates they wished to have considered for representation on the task force. From this list, the NCAI Executive Board selected two delegates and one alternate delegate to represent each federally recognized area of Indian Country. The current task force consists of tribal leaders, tribal council members, tribal program directors and national/regional Indian organization representatives.

The first major function of the task force was to develop a set of comments on the tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families / Native Employment Works (TANF/NEW) Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). After incorporating comments from tribes, intertribal and national/regional Indian organizations, the task force drafted a comprehensive set of comments which NCAI staff finalized and submitted to the DHHS on November 22, 1998. These comments are available on NCAI's web page.

It should be noted that, to date, consultation with tribes by the DHHS on promulgating federal regulations to implement the tribal TANF/NEW laws have been minimal, consisted of:

a) a five-page, Tribal TANF Questionnaire sent to all federally recognized Indian tribes on February 11, 1997;

b) a guidance document for tribes to use in developing their own TANF plans, also sent to tribes on February 18, 1997;

c) a Data Processing Capacities questionnaire faxed to tribes on March 11, 1997; and,

d) a tribal TANF/NEW NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1998, with an original comment deadline of sixty days which was extended an additional sixty days by the DHHS at the urgence of tribes and the NCAI.

 

The tribal TANF questionnaire provided tribes an opportunity to propose suggestions to the ACF on a number of issues, including: what types of tribal data sources should be used to determine funding levels for tribal TANF grants; the contents of, and process for, approving tribal TANF plans; the penalty assessment process for tribal TANF plan violations; tribal work participation requirements and time limits; tribal data reporting requirements; and the level of consultation and negotiation required by the tribes of the ACF. The data processing questionnaire was disseminated in an effort to identify the current level of electronic communications and data processing capacities of tribes. As a final note, the ACF has reported to the NCAI that, as of January 1, 1999, nineteen tribal TANF plans have been approved, some serving a consortia of tribal governments, with two other plans awaiting approval. Of these, the majority will receive some form of state matching funds, with some plans serving Indian and non-Indian families living within the plan's service area.

The process of developing a set of tribal, congressional and administrative agendas on improving welfare reform in Indian Country will be the next area of focus for the task force. It is envisioned that these agendas will be developed through the collective efforts of the task force, tribal leaders, tribal welfare reform program experts, national and regional Indian organizations, Congress, and federal and state officials working with tribes on welfare reform issues.

The tribal government agenda will consist of tribal welfare reform implementation models, or "best practices" from throughout Indian Country. Also included will be an analysis of current state/tribal relations and implementation options for tribes wishing to initiate welfare reform programs or services within their communities. It is also anticipated that a comprehensive data collection methodology may be developed for use by tribal governments, thereby creating a consistent data collection system among tribes that will better serve Indian families and help to substantiate the welfare needs throughout Indian Country.

The congressional agenda will consist of the revised tribal amendments' package to welfare reform, as well as new legislative initiatives deemed necessary to ensure appropriate opportunities for tribes to reduce their welfare recipient populations. In January 1999, the welfare reform task force determined that revising the February 1997 tribal welfare reform legislative amendments package was a priority that would be developed and advanced before the 106th Congress. As previously highlighted above, additional issues have been identified which the task force will include as part of a revised set of tribal specific amendments to the welfare reform law. It is the goal of the task force to first develop a comprehensive set of tribal amendments under a single instrument, then categorically separate those amendments into more "issue focused" packages. In this way, tribally specific positions on a variety of welfare related categories (i.e., TANF, job creation, Medicaid, data collection, child care, transportation and housing, et cetera), will be available for possible inclusion in a number of potential legislative initiatives before the 106th Congress. It is the collective wisdom of the task force that under the current political climate, this approach may prove more successful than trying to get a comprehensive set of amendments adopted as part of a single bill.

The administrative agenda will include as its first priority, the advancement of a formalized consultation and negotiation process between tribes and federal agencies. This process, as called for under Executive Order #13084, is one that tribal governments feel most federal agencies have failed to adhere to. In addition, work will continue to develop pro-active policy initiatives as well as formal comments on anticipated NPRM's targeted at other federal agencies whose regulatory processes over specific tribal programs are still pending. For example, the Department of Labor's (DOL) Division of Indian and Native American Programs (DINAP) has met throughout the year with a working group of tribes operating their own JOBS programs in an effort to develop a set of tribal regulations surrounding the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs that are sensitive to the special needs of tribes currently operating, or anticipating operating such job training and attainment related programs. Once finalized and approved, NCAI will forward these agendas to Indian Country, Congress and the Administration.

Finally, in conjunction with the 1999 NCAI Executive Council Winter Session, NCAI's national welfare reform task force held an organizational meeting in which discussion topics included the task force working with the SCIA to help develop the best focus and strategy surrounding the upcoming April 14, 1999, oversight hearing on the implementation of welfare reform in Indian Country. Such efforts may include the development of a list of priority issues, the collection of comprehensive materials on these priorities, and identifying the most articulate spokespersons in Indian Country on welfare reform related issues.

 

In Conclusion

Tribes perceive welfare reform as a devolution of federal trust responsibilities to the states. Much of this concern is caused by the ambiguity toward the treatment of tribes under the welfare reform laws themselves. The federal government no longer controls most of the allocation of cash assistance, including eligibility requirements and actual cash disbursements, to Indians. Moreover, many tribes have trust provisions in their treaties which call for health, education, welfare and social service support to be rendered by the federal government. For them, as well as for all of Indian Country, welfare reform constitutes an encroachment upon the government-to-government relationship which exists between Indian tribes and the federal government. Considering the issues surrounding welfare reform and the substantial impacts these laws and policies are having on tribal communities, NCAI has intensified its level of advocacy on behalf of Indian Country.

Devolution is a growing trend in the United States, with more localized government control over federal functions gaining broad-based support among the voting public. Even tribes advocate for more control over federal programs, services and funding authority. Welfare reform is the first major test case of this devolutionary trend. Of utmost concern is the government-to-government relations between tribes, states and the federal government. Federal and state governments persist in their lack of acknowledgment of and respect for the sovereignty of tribal governments. Tribal, federal and state commitments to enhance and strengthen government-to-government relationships must be obtained and upheld if improving the quality of life for impoverished Indian families is to occur. As this process of implementing and amending welfare reform continues through the Administration and the Congress, NCAI will continue to serve as a lead advocate on eliminating this Act's disparities toward Indian Country. Through the directive of tribal leaders, NCAI stands ready to work with all interested parties to ensure that these goals are achieved.

For further information on welfare reform and its impacts on Indian Country, please contact JoAnn K. Chase, NCAI Executive Director, Leland McGee, NCAI Legislative Associate, or Sarah Hicks, NCAI Welfare Reform Program Manager at (202) 466-7767.

* * * * *