Investing in Indian Families and Communities

By Sarah L. Hicks, MSW
National Congress of American Indians
and
Eddie F. Brown, DSW
Kathryn M. Buder for American Indian Studies
George Warren Brown School of Social Work
Washington University

October 25, 2000

Introduction

In the Summer of 1996, the 104th Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, 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 Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33). The result of these laws is an unprecedented and comprehensive 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. PRWORA authorizes federal funding for TANF and related support programs through FY2002.

The purpose of this paper is to raise specific issues for tribal governments to consider in their plans for the reauthorization of PRWORA in 2002. This paper captures issues that tribal leaders and program administrators, federal program staff, state liaisons to tribal welfare programs, and advocacy groups have discussed in PRWORA reauthorization meetings. The issues highlighted by tribes are briefly described and some potential policy proposals are mentioned. Tribal governments need to make decisions about specific policy proposals to advance to Congress in PRWORA reauthorization debates.

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the oldest, largest and most representative national organization representing the interests of tribal governments. In 1996, the NCAI Welfare Reform Program was established as an information clearinghouse, to share information and provide technical assistance to American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments. In February 2000, NCAI convened tribes to begin conversations about PRWORA reauthorization. In May, Tribal TANF administrators began quarterly meetings to identify issues to address in reauthorization and to develop specific policy recommendations. Regular participation from the majority of the 23 TANF tribes and 4 tribal TANF consortiums in these meetings has contributed to the breadth of information included in this paper.

Issues raised in this paper are also the result of numerous discussions with individual tribes and states, national governmental organizations and advocacy groups, federal agencies, researchers, and congressional staff.

With the reauthorization of welfare reform almost two years away, advocates and decision-makers are compiling data and marshaling support for desired policy changes. Because the current Presidential Administration will not be responsible for the reauthorization, many of the policy debates surrounding welfare reform are not in the public arena yet. The controversial "success" of welfare reform, as indicated by rapidly plunging caseloads and state TANF surpluses, gives advocates and communities good cause to be preparing to defend the reauthorization of PRWORA with substantially similar funding levels. Indeed, the basis for state and tribal TANF grant funding levels will be the major issue for reauthorization.

Since PRWORA implementation, newspapers have flounced stories of rapidly declining TANF caseloads and billions of dollars of unspent state TANF funds. Nationally, from early 1994 to mid-1999, welfare caseloads have fallen from 5 million to 2.4 million families, a reduction of 52 percent (DHHS, 2000). State TANF spending has likewise decreased. Unspent state TANF funds are a critical indicator for a number of reasons, not least of which is the message they send to Congress—that there are surpluses or unnecessary funding being appropriated for TANF (Lazarre, 2000). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), however, projects that by 2002, while some prior year TANF funds will remain unexpended, states will be spending 96% of their current year TANF allocation. If TANF is reauthorized at current funding levels, the CBO estimates that states will spend 100% of their current year allocation by 2003 (CBO,2000).

In short, the political landscape for the reauthorization of welfare reform is challenging. With a federal emphasis on deficit reduction and balanced budgets, federally-funded programs and services are constantly competing for scarce resources. Unnecessary or under-utilized funds from one program are quickly reappropriated. Funding potentially cut from TANF blockgrants could easily be diverted to many other under-funded programs.

Yet, despite falling caseloads and unspent TANF funds, "the need for TANF investment remains high. State and national-level studies have found that families leaving welfare for work typically have very low earnings and remain in poverty. The studies also show that many such families do not receive important supports such as child care and transportation assistance that could be funded under TANF" (Lazarre, 2000).

State governors, the primary authors of the welfare reform law, have a lot at stake—first, in proving that welfare reform has been a success and second, in championing reauthorization of the law while protecting substantially similar funding levels. Especially with an emphasis on dedicating TANF funds to the "hard to serve" populations and the notion of the necessity to "invest in multi-problem families," interests of tribal governments and state governments may overlap significantly (Johnson, et al., 2000).

Both tribes and states have an interest in reauthorization with similar funding levels and in investing in families to prepare them for the workforce. Particularly as state caseloads dwindle and tribal families make up a larger percentage of state TANF caseloads (DHHS, 2000), states must begin to consider what supports tribal families need and how services may best be delivered. Out of the necessity of meeting work participation rates, states are becoming increasingly concerned with tribal communities.

With a potentially captive state audience that has many resources at stake, tribes need to be able to tell their story, to share their experience in providing programs and services for their people, to identify barriers and to relay solutions. Tribes need to be ready as the Presidential Administration changes and advocates and policymakers come to Congress with proposals in hand. When legislative committees are floating draft bills, tribes have to be prepared with proposals-- specific language and provisions to address the issues that they are concerned about.

Tribal governments were not actively consulted in 1995-96 in the drafting of welfare reform legislation (HR 3734 and its precedents). It is widely recognized that tribes were added to the law as an afterthought, with inconsistent provisions mentioning American Indian tribes sprinkled sporadically throughout the statute. Tribal governments vehemently opposed the lack of consultation in the drafting of PRWORA. Reauthorization represents a narrow window of opportunity to engage the majority of mainstream policy makers and to correct many of the problems that tribes have with TANF and other PRWORA programs.

It is critical to recognize that all tribal governments, whether or not they administer TANF, have a vested interest in the reauthorization of PRWORA. All tribes have an interest in ensuring policies that actively facilitate the ability of tribal governments to administer TANF, child care programs, child support enforcement programs, and employment and training programs, if they elect to do so.

All tribes have a similar interest in ensuring that policies are in place that protect the right of tribal communities to receive assistance and support programs from state government, if they do not wish to administer such programs themselves (Hicks, et al., 2000). This is the fundamental tenant of tribal sovereignty—that a government can exercise its right to make a decision and act in its own best interest. Whether or not a tribe elects to administer a TANF program, it is exercising its’ sovereignty. In order to protect their self-determination, their ability to chose whether or not to administer TANF, all tribes should support PRWORA provisions which facilitate a tribe’s ability to administer TANF should they chose to and provisions which provide tribal communities access to adequate and appropriate state-administered services in situations where a tribe opts not to administer a TANF program.

As the primary TANF providers, state governments also hold a stake in tribal provisions in the welfare reform law. The reauthorization will revisit earlier debates about appropriate service delivery systems and about tribal access to state systems. State TANF plans detail the programs that will provide assistance to families. Governors generally have wide discretion over the structure of state programs. With gubernatorial input, state agencies have been experimenting with a variety of service delivery mechanisms to reach Iow-income, working families, including Indian families. Many state human service agencies now have designated tribal liaisons, whose chief role is to communicate and coordinate with both TANF and non-TANF tribes.

State legislatures have also played a role in welfare reform. As the appropriators of state budgets, legislators enact laws that funnel dollars to specific state programs. Legislatures are also the governmental body that decides whether or not to provide tribal TANF programs with state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) dollars. Largely in the matter of resources and service delivery systems, state governments are involved in welfare reform reauthorization.

Although tribes are just beginning to work with counties and other units of local government, they are also strategic partners in reauthorization. County governments have played an increasingly important role in welfare reform as many states have opted to designate counties as the implementers of state TANF programs. In many cases, counties develop local operating plans and have wide discretion of the implementation. County and tribal governments will have many mutual concerns about recipients’ access to quality services.

Federal agencies that provide oversight to federal PRWORA-authorized programs also have a stake in welfare reform reauthorization. Hence, they should also be involved in tribal reauthorization efforts, so the message that Congress receives is as consistent as possible. The mutual concerns and energy of all of these stakeholder groups—tribal governments, state governments, and federal agencies—should be harnessed to create policy recommendations that have broad support.

A look at any national newspaper will tell you the story of rapidly declining welfare caseloads- 52 percent fewer families (7,840,000 recipients) nationwide between January 1993 and December 1999. In some states, caseloads have declined by even more– 90 percent in Wyoming, 77 percent in Wisconsin, 70 percent in Oklahoma, 61 percent in South Dakota, and 60 percent in Oregon (DHHS, 2000). But where are former welfare recipients going? Some are certainly going to work; others are simply disappearing from the social service rolls- opting out of a more punitive and complex welfare system or being sanctioned or terminated from the TANF program. Of those recipients that are securing employment, most are working minimum wage with minimal benefits- not moving far from the federal poverty line. Many require extensive support program benefits to maintain their jobs; access to quality child care, transportation to and from work, medical care and sufficient food and shelter continue to be daily struggles for many former welfare recipients who are now working.

As of October 1, 2000, 27 Tribal TANF plans have been approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Serving 155 tribes in 14 states, these Tribal TANF plans provide benefits to an estimated 14,646 Native families. In FY1999, the majority of Native families, about 40,000 families, were served by state welfare programs (DHHS, 2000).

DHHS FY 1998 data illustrate the progress of state TANF programs in moving Native families from welfare to work. Nationally, from 1994 to 1998, state TANF caseloads fell from 3,361,268 to 1,813,769, a difference of 1,547,499 or 46 percent. State TANF caseloads including an American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) in the case, fell from 67,817 to 41,506 a difference of 26,311 or 38.8 percent. Although the difference of 7.2 percent may seem slight overall, individual state caseload data tell a more severe story (DHHS, 2000).

In Alaska, the overall state AFDC/TANF caseload fell by 14.8 percent, while the AI/AN caseload fell by 6.4 percent, a difference of 8.4 percent.

In Arizona, the state caseload dropped by 59.2 percent overall, while the AI/AN caseload declined by 40.4 percent, a difference of 18.8 percent.

In Montana, the state caseload declined by 26.3 percent, while the AI/AN caseload grew by 0.5 percent, a difference of 26.8 percent.

In North Dakota, the state caseload dropped by 55 percent, while the AI/AN caseload declined by 42 percent, a difference of 13 percent.

In South Dakota, the overall state caseload declined by 65 percent, while the AI/AN caseload declined by 56.2 percent, a difference of 8.8 percent.

In many mid-west states with substantial American Indian/Alaska Native populations, as state AI/AN TANF caseloads decrease at a slower rate than the overall state caseload, state TANF caseloads are becoming increasingly and disproportionately Native. In remote, rural reservations where few job opportunities exist and access to necessary social support programs depend on traveling many miles, many Native families are simply not making the transition from welfare to work.

A recently released study by the Kathryn M. Buder Center for American Indian Studies at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University highlights some key findings about the impact of welfare reform on three Arizona reservations: Navajo, San Carlos and Salt River (Pandey, et al., 2000). Based on interviews with 445 current and former TANF recipients on the three reservations, these findings include:

Seventy-three percent of welfare recipients do not have a high school diploma.

Only 11 percent of respondents had found work and exited TANF. Forty-six percent of the sample had never worked at a regular job for pay. (Nationally, about 75 percent of welfare families have had at least some work experience.)

Employed respondents were making an average hourly wage of $6.70 and a monthly wage of $482; this is substantially below the poverty line. Most households continue to rely on public assistance.

Transportation and child care are severely inadequate on reservations. Only 29 percent of respondents owned an automobile, many of which were not reliable. Eighty-six percent of the sample had children under the age of 13, with an average of 2.4 children under 13 per respondent. Only two families in the whole sample used a formal child care facility; others relied on friends or family for child care. Only a few respondents received help to pay for child care costs.

About 12 percent of respondents received full or partial sanctions; nationally, the sanction rate is five percent of the average monthly caseload.

Nearly 50 percent of respondents are not able to buy the food they need; a quarter of respondents indicated that their children often went to school or to bed hungry. Twenty-two percent of respondents said that their gas or electricity had been cut off in the last three months because they were unable to pay the bill.

Despite poverty and hardship, two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they prefer to live on their reservation than somewhere else.

Given the impediments to the success of welfare reform in tribal communities, American Indian and Alaskan Native tribes are looking to PRWORA reauthorization as an opportunity to bring about much-needed welfare policy and program changes.

The reauthorization of welfare reform will continue to address issues that precipitated its initial enactment. In response to societal criticism about "welfare dependency," welfare reform addressed the issue of moving families off of welfare and into the workplace. As heads of households have become employed, we have seen families move from welfare dependency to the ranks of the working poor. The path to self-sufficiency took a detour. Low-skilled jobs with wages and benefits that can support families with children are scarce.

Faced with this stark reality, many advocates are now redefining the problem of "welfare." In a paradigm shift that focuses on moving families out of poverty instead of just requiring heads of households to get a job, advocates consider a variety of strategies that will address the root problem of welfare—that of poor families. General strategies that reduce poverty include: increasing family income, reducing family expenses, expanding family opportunities, building knowledge and skills, and promoting stronger family/parental responsibility (National Center for Children in Poverty, 1999). These general strategies indicate that the reduction of poverty is largely reliant on the investment of resources in individual families. If welfare reform provisions target strategies that invest in families and family wellness by providing adequate social supports and opportunities for secondary education and meaningful employment, public policy will truly impact poverty.

There is some question as to how tribal concerns will be addressed in reauthorization. In recent meetings with tribal TANF administrators, there has been dialogue about the possibility of advancing a separate tribal title of PRWORA legislation. It is thought that this may be a way to distinguish tribal programs from state programs and to more specifically target and group statutory changes and provisions that tribes favor. In the alternative, tribal programs and statutory amendments could continue to be included in separate sections of titles that address general programs (i.e. While Title I of PRWORA addresses state TANF blockgrants, Section 412 of Title I pertains to tribal TANF programs).

The issues outlined in this paper reflect the beginning discussions of identifying areas of tribal concern. These issues will continue to be revisited and refined in the process of drafting a final proposal.

Undoubtedly the primary issue for all stakeholders in PRWORA reauthorization will be the funding formula. Section 403 addresses the current TANF blockgrant formula, giving states three options in determining grant amounts: (a) 1/3 of the total amount for FY 1992, 1993 and 1994; (b) the amount in FY 1994; or (c) 4/3 the amount for the first three quarters of FY 1995. States receive a grant determined by the greatest of these three options. As stated in Section 412, tribal TANF grantees do not have options in the determination of grant amounts, but rather receive a grant based on the federal payment to the state for Indian families residing in the specified service area in FY 1994.

At this time, no concrete reauthorization funding formula proposals have been advanced, but the development of funding formula options will be the central issue. In large part, this issue will be influenced by the vast amounts of caseload data that DHHS has collected from states and tribes, the overwhelming volumes of publicly and privately funded welfare reform research, and the existence of state TANF surpluses.

In recent forums, tribes have discussed the fact that they will need funding formula options. Similar to options that states currently have, tribes should be able to select a formula that will benefit them. Although some tribes prefer the current Tribal TANF formula based on FY1994 caseload data, many tribes have experienced dramatic increases in caseload after they assumed TANF. Attributable to better program access and the willingness of tribal community members to participate in a program administered by their tribe instead of by the state, growing TANF caseloads place significant stress on tribal budgets. Any new TANF funding formula will have to address the growth of some Tribal TANF caseloads over FY1994 caseloads.

In addition to the funding formula, reauthorization will largely focus on a few vitally needed statutory changes. Tribes have consistently raised these specific issues since the inception of welfare reform: prior to and after the enactment of welfare reform, in two different versions of proposed technical amendments bills, in response to various proposed federal regulations, and in many public forums (www.ncai.org). Major policies issues to be addressed in reauthorization include: (1) a dual focus that encompasses micro and macro perspectives and dictates investing in both individual families and tribal economies; (2) adequate resources for the administration of tribal TANF programs; (3) sufficient resources for related support services; (4) the disregard of the 60 month time limit on Indian reservations with 50 percent joblessness; and (5) multiple issues addressed by state TANF plans.

In looking at social and supportive services on Indian reservations, one must take into account the context in which services are provided. The provision of TANF, employment and training programs, child care, and child support enforcement services, whether by the state or tribe, all occur within a political, economic and social environment. The welfare reform policy, as articulated by PRWORA, dictates a move from welfare to work. This mandate ignores the social, political and economic context of the environment. In decreasing dependency on welfare and producing viable options for productive futures, policy makers need to adopt a dual focus. Healthy tribal economies and self-sufficient families can only result from substantial investment in both individual families and the larger tribal environment. In addition to providing assistance and support for families, welfare reform must necessarily concentrate on tribal economic development.

According to the DHHS Third Annual Report to Congress on TANF, the overall work participation rate for all families in Tribal TANF programs averages about 64 percent (DHHS, 2000). About 11 percent of these adults were working in unsubsidized employment, while almost 46 percent had unpaid work experience and over 33 percent were doing job search and job readiness activities. The low percentage of recipients engaged in unsubsidized work activities strongly reflects the lack of economic opportunities and jobs available on reservations.

Creating better tribal economic development opportunities, which in turn lead to sustainable economies and the creation of livable wage jobs for unemployed Indian parents, is the issue that Congress and the Administration must address more vigorously.

The lack of adequate resources for the administration of TANF has been a major barrier to the tribal assumption of the program. As tribes have related numerous times, without administrative funding, start-up funding, technological and management information systems funding, or state maintenance of effort funding, most tribes simply cannot afford to take on a TANF program. The unfortunate reality is that the resources necessary to develop the physical, administrative and programmatic infrastructures needed for successful TANF implementation are not available to most tribal governments. This lack of basic support makes it virtually impossible for most tribes to assume welfare assistance program responsibilities.

Moreover, the welfare reform law only guarantees tribes the federal dollars expended on those identifiable tribal populations served under the FY1994 AFDC program. The reality of operating a tribal TANF plan is this: tribes are offered an opportunity to assume highly expensive welfare program responsibilities; to serve a welfare population that is usually larger than the population identified under the state's FY1994 AFDC recipient data; with roughly half of the funding that the states needed to operate those same programs; including little or no technical support from either the states or the 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.

While there is tribal consensus on the necessity of maintenance of effort and administrative funds, there is considerable debate about whether funding streams to facilitate the administration of tribal TANF programs should come from state or federal governments. On one hand, because of the government-to-government relationship with the federal government and the federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes, tribal governments should receive the resources they need from the federal government. On the other hand, because state governments appropriate funding to provide programs and services to all of their citizens, tribal members, as state citizens, should have equal access to these funds.

One potential solution to some of the financial barriers that tribes have encountered in considering the administration of a tribal TANF program would be to treat the tribal TANF program as a Pub. L. 93-638 program for tribal contracting purposes, including the payment of contract support costs. In 1997, the Navajo Nation submitted a tribal TANF plan to DHHS with the intent to 638 contract the program. The Secretary's initial decision to refuse tribal 638 contracting of TANF, because PRWORA did not specifically allow it, was appealed by the tribe and upheld by the Arizona District Court. The case is now being appealed to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA. The reauthorization of PRWORA could certainly include provisions to allow tribes to contract for TANF and to receive administrative funding, or contract support costs. Of course, the federal funding agency would need an increased appropriation to pay the indirect costs.

Regardless of the mechanism through which additional resources are provided to tribal TANF programs, a fundamental issue is the ability of tribes to enjoy equal treatment under the law as sovereign governments (similar to states), which will in turn nurture meaningful tribal participation in welfare reform throughout Indian country.

In addition to resources for tribal TANF administration, tribes need resources for the myriad of support services that TANF recipients and other low-income workers need to succeed in their transition from welfare to work. Many TANF recipients face a variety of barriers to employment. Families may need any array of employment and training, education, child welfare, child care, transportation, domestic violence, mental health, and alcohol and substance abuse services (Pandey, et al., 2000; Pandey, et al., 1998). In order for tribes to succeed either in administering TANF programs themselves or in providing programs and services for their tribal members who are covered under state TANF programs, sufficient resources for support services related to TANF are critical.

Additional resources for tribal employment and training programs will be especially essential. The DHHS 2000 Congressional report points out that the relatively high percentage (48.5 percent) of Tribal TANF recipients engaged in job search/readiness, vocational education, job skills development and school attendance indicates a strong need for basic education, training and barrier removal (DHHS, 2000).

Even with the help of a multitude of support services, a family will still be unable to transition to work if there are no jobs available. The Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program was not reauthorized for FY 2000. Although Congress liberalized program eligibility criteria to help states and tribes spend WtW funds, many tribes have already expended their WtW grants. Of those who have not, the liberalized criteria mean that tribes who have worked hardest to make the program work will run out of funds even faster (DeWeaver, March 6, 2000). Tribes are in desperate need of resources to promote employment readiness and placement, as well as job retention. Increasing tribal Native Employment Works (NEW) grants is one mechanism through which tribes can compensate for lost WtW fund. In order for NEW to be a viable substitute, eligibility criteria for tribal NEW administration would have to be expanded (DeWeaver, October 27, 2000).

In short, tribal grantees need adequate resources to provide continued supportive services. It is widely recognized that many "hard-to-serve" populations will require an investment of resources and services to move recipients to work. There are hard-to-serve sub-populations in any group of recipients. Many tribal communities have lower educational attainment, less work experience, greater health problems, a higher birth rate, and are more likely to live in severe poverty than average U.S. communities (Pandey, et. al., 2000; Staveteig and Wigton, 2000). Tribal grantees have a higher percentage of hard-to-serve clients and need additional resources to provide supportive services over a longer period of time to clients who are having difficulty transitioning to work and becoming self-sufficient.

Section 408 of PRWORA allows an Indian adult to deduct from their five-year cumulative assistance benefit limit any time living on an Indian reservation as a jobless person, so long as that reservation community has a reporting period joblessness rate of at least 50 percent. For tribes that can document a 50 percent joblessness rate throughout the entire reporting period, this is a well-suited provision. Many tribes, however, cannot meet this requirement, showing instead a fluctuating joblessness rate hovering just below 50 percent, due mainly to seasonal or temporary employment on their reservations.

The 50 percent rate has proven to be fairly arbitrary. There is no significant difference in the quality of life for Indian families who live on reservations with a 38 percent or 45 percent joblessness rate, instead of a 50 percent joblessness rate. Tribes have repeatedly questioned whether the 50 percent joblessness requirement to trigger the disregard of months of assistance should be significantly lowered.

The changing of this provision, would however, be a double-edged sword. While lowering the joblessness requirement to a more reasonable rate would provide some relief for families struggling to find jobs on reservations where no jobs exist, it would also take pressure off of the federal, state and tribal governments and programs to move families to work. Moreover, families would likely not have access to the job placement and support services and would not feel the same motivation to get a job.

Both TANF and non-TANF tribes have issues related to the development and implementation of state TANF plans. The reauthorization of PRWORA will present an opportunity for states to revise and update their TANF plans. It will also provide an opportunity for tribes to advocate for some of the provisions that they feel are critical for state plans to include.

First, although states must certify that they have consulted with "local governments and private sector organizations" regarding the plan and the "design of welfare services in the state," there is no assurance of equal consultation with tribes. Tribal governments have valuable input and considerations regarding the design of the welfare services that will serve their tribal members and/or are coordinated with the social support services that tribes themselves administer.

Second, although states are required to certify that they will provide Indians with equitable access to state assistance, "equitable access" is neither defined nor enforceable. It is clearly the intent of Congress that tribes be assured that state services are provided to their members in the same manner that other citizens receive these services. Tribal governments should also have recourse if states do not provide services in an equal manner.

Third, work activities are clearly defined in section 407 of PRWORA. Although tribal governments administering TANF are given flexibility in defining their own work activities and can incorporate tribal and cultural activities, such as subsistence and artistic activities, tribal members who are covered under a state plan are limited to the 12 work activities listed in section 407. An expanded definition of state work activities that included subsistence and cultural activities would serve useful on reservations and in rural areas where unsubsidized wage work is scarce. Defining such activities as "work" would recognize the work that families currently do on a daily basis as well as assist states in meeting work requirements and avoiding penalties (Pickering, 2000).

All three of these issues regarding state plans can be addressed through reauthorization of PRWORA, which dictates, to some extent, the content and development process of state TANF plans.

Many other issues will be raised and refined in the context of PRWORA reauthorization. Issues that have been consistently raised include:

Tribal TANF grantees should have access to TANF performance bonuses. Tribes assume the same challenges and risks that states do; they should have access to the same bonuses when their performance is exemplary.

Tribal/state child support enforcement cooperative agreements and independent tribal programs are still fairly new in Indian Country. With the recent publication of DHHS Tribal Child Support Enforcement Program proposed and interim regulations (August 21, 2000), tribes are authorized to receive direct federal funding and administer tribal child support programs for the first time. Many issues will likely arise as new tribal programs are implemented.

Because TANF reporting requirements are so burdensome and no separate funding for technological/management information systems or staff training is available, many of the tribal TANF grantees have data collection and reporting agreements with their state. Because they are dependent on the state to meet the reporting requirements, in many cases, tribes can not take advantage of the flexibility that PRWORA permits. For example, although tribal TANF grantees can modify program eligibility criteria, most state reporting systems can not accommodate such changes, so a tribe who chooses to contract with the state to meet reporting requirements cannot take advantage of the flexibility allowed to tribes. Tribes desperately need separate technology funds that are not taken out of program funding.

Tribal TANF grantees need resources to conduct evaluations of their program. Section 413 gives states have access to evaluation dollars. Tribes should similarly receive these resources.

Tribes need funding to provide secondary education. Currently, there are not sufficient resources to provide for secondary education, nor does PRWORA allow secondary education, beyond a certificate of general equivalence, to count as a work activity. Research shows that education combined with work activities is the best way to move welfare recipients out of poverty (Loprest, 1999; Zedlewski, 1999).

In taking a holistic approach to welfare reform, reauthorization should also allow TANF tribes the option to operate related programs, such as Food Stamps and Medicaid.

Funding for construction and renovation is needed. Particularly where tribes are trying to co-locate services to better serve clients, buildings for program operations are simply not available.

Reauthorization will be an opportunity to re-examine Alaska-specific provisions, including the program comparability requirement (section 412) and the requirement to limit tribal TANF grants in Alaska to Alaska Native corporations in lieu of Alaska tribal governments (section 419).

Because of the increased percentage of hard-to-serve clients and increased cost of living in remote rural areas, tribal TANF programs need the ability to negotiate higher hardship exemption rates.

The administrative cap imposed by the federal regulations at 45 CFR Part 286 is too restrictive. There is no administrative cap in the statute. As the law implies, tribal TANF administrators should be able to negotiate these rates (without any cap) relative to their economic conditions and available resources. Particularly during the first years of operation, since there are no maintenance of effort dollars, no technology funding, and no planning grants, the initial administrative cost to tribes is enormous. Although some measure of flexibility is afforded by the negotiable graduated cap in the regulation, a fixed administrative cap treats all tribes the same and does not sufficiently allow for individual circumstances, nor recognize the resources that tribes are not statutorily afforded.

Because tribal governments are new TANF program administrators, funding for training and technical assistance is necessary. Peer-to-peer training and technical assistance programs should be developed and funded to share tribal "best practices."

As El Paso County (CO) Human Service Agency Director and Deputy Director, David Berns and Barbara Drake state, "…we know that many of our communities and families still have many needs. The low-paying jobs that many former welfare recipients have secured may offer more money than their TANF payment, but such jobs are not sufficient to move these families out of poverty. An appropriate strategy needs to be set in place to help formulate and support long-term self-sufficiency goals: to develop skills to move into higher paying jobs, to manage family demands competently in the face of requirements for good daily work performance, and to attend to family development tasks, so that the next generation can build on the success of this one. Addressing these complex and challenging issues is, in the final analysis, more important….than simply getting people into the laborforce" (Berns & Drake, 1998).

Resources are needed to address the complex and challenging issues that low- income families face. Through the reauthorization of welfare reform, Congress needs to commit adequate resources, to invest in Indian families and in tribal communities. Resources to facilitate the tribal administration of TANF are vital. Resources are also required to provide sufficient supportive services to low-income families. State TANF plans should increasingly be coordinated with tribal governments and tribal service delivery systems. State plans should include enforceable provisions that give tribal communities input into state plans, equal access to state TANF services when they are not provided by the tribe, and recognize and accommodate differential tribal economic and social conditions.

Berns, D. and Drake, B. (1998). Promoting safe and stable families through welfare reform. The Prevention Report: National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice, (2) pp. 4-8.

Congressional Budget Office, (December 1999). TANF: baseline budget authority, outlays, annual change in balance, and cumulative unspent balance projections. Unpublished document. Washington, DC.

DeWeaver, N. (March 6, 2000). Urgent need for FY 2000 tribal WtW funding. Washington, DC: Indian and Native American Employment Training Coalition Action Memo.

DeWeaver, N. (October 27, 2000). Issues involving tribal programs serving the employment needs of welfare recipients. Washington, DC: Indian and Native American Employment Training Coalition.

Hicks, S. and Dossett, J. (September 19, 2000). Principled devolution: Protecting tribal self-determination in an era of growing state power. working paper. Washington, DC: National Congress of American Indians.

Johnson, S., Kaufmann, J., Dossett, J. and Hicks, S. (2000). Government-to-government: Understanding state and tribal governments. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.

Lazarre, E. (2000). Welfare balances after three years of TANF block grants: unspent TANF funds at the end of Fiscal Year 1999. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Loprest, P. (August 1999). How families that left welfare are doing: A national picture. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, Policy Brief B-1.

National Center for Children in Poverty (July 1999). Strategies to reduce child poverty. New York, NY: Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University.

National Congress of American Indians (2000). Issues in Indian country: welfare reform. [On-line] Available: http://www.ncai.org.

Pandey, S., Brown, E.F., and Scheuler-Whitaker, L. (1998). Impact of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) on American Indian families with children: initial experiences of service providers and recipients on reservations in Arizona. St. Louis, MO: Kathryn M. Buder Center for American Indian Studies, Washington University.

Pandey, S., Brown, E.F., Scheuler-Whitaker, L., Gundersen, B., and Eyrich, K. (1999). Promise of welfare reform: Development through devolution on Indian reservations. Journal of Poverty, 3(4), 37-61.

Pandey, S., Zhan, M., Collier-Tenison, S., and Hui, K. (July 2000). How are families on reservations faring under welfare reform? working paper 2. St. Louis, MO: Kathryn M. Buder Center for American Indian Studies, Washington University.

Pickering, K. (2000). Alternative economic strategies in low-income rural communities: TANF, labor migration, and the case of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Rural Sociology, 65 (1), pp. 148-167.

Staveteig, S. and Wigton, A. (February 2000). Racial and ethnic disparities: Key findings from the National Survey of America’s Families. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, Series B-5.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (August 1999). Second annual report to Congress: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (August 2000). Third annual report to Congress: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Washington, DC.

Zedlewski, S. (September 1999). Work activity and obstacles to work among TANF recipients. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, Policy Brief B-2.