![](media/image1.png) ![](media/image2.wmf)

Minutes

**February 28, 2003 Conference Call --- Tribal TANF**

**Presenters included:**

Ms. Virginia Hill, Director of Torres Martinez Tribal TANF Program.

Mr. Alex Yazza, Jr, Administrator of the Navajo Tribal TANF Program

Ms. Sarah Hicks, Director of the National Congress of American Indians
Welfare Reform Program

## Resources from the Call

Sarah Hicks submitted a briefing on Tribal Welfare Reform which appears
below.

Virginia Hill cited a California-Nevada Tribal TANF Administrators'
Association briefing paper on MOE credits for Tribal TANF which appears
below.

It was announced that the new National Tribal TANF Association will meet
in Washington DC , March 13-14 for a "Best Practices" conference.

## Notes from the Call

Jay Surdukowski, Taskforce moderator, introduced the call topic and the
speakers.

Mr. Alex Yazza Jr. spoke first and gave a brief overview of the program
he manages. The Navajo TANF program extends over a vast area that
includes land in the states of New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona serves 9000
families, 27,000 total recipients.

Mr. Yazza discussed the optimism tribes felt in 1996 when ACF was
implementing TANF. It was seen as a real opportunity for an assertion of
independence and self-sufficiency on behalf of tribes.

However, section 412 of the TANF statute, which invited tribes to apply
to create their own TANF programs was very limited, vague and bland. The
lack of guidance in section 412 really made its inclusion look like an
afterthought on the part of Congress and the Administration. The law was
really written more towards states, so from the beginning, tribes were
at a disadvantage in terms of funds and how collaboration would happen
with the federal government.

Navajo leaders wanted to instead submit a contract for TANF under public
law 93-638, but Secretary Shalala rejected this. This matter is still in
the courts after an unsuccessful appeal in Phoenix. It is now being
considered in the 9^th^ Circuit (San Francisco).

Navajo leaders eventually did submit a Tribal TANF plan under section
412, but the difficulties remained of the law not providing clear
guidance.

Navajo TANF has had to coordinate across three different states. Some
problems with working with states have included questionable caseload
counts and what portion, if any, of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) dollars
are allocated to tribes. There is also question about the blending of
services. States are sometimes not keen on giving up control of related
programs such as transitional benefits. The dream of tribal TANF "one
stop shops" is frustrated.

Congress also did not contemplate what it would cost for Tribal TANF to
be truly successful. Socio-economic challenges on reservations are
pronounced and have not been reckoned with in the law.

Tribal welfare programs can be a real positive chance for the rebuilding
of sovereignty and success.

Senator Baucus'American Indian Welfare Reform Act from the 107^th^
Congress, SB 2484, contained many beneficial components for Tribal TANF.
HR 4 on the other hand is very limited. Again, Tribal TANF seems to be
an afterthought.

Virginia Hill then spoke to her experience as the Director of Torres
Martinez Tribal TANF. 8 Different reservations are served; both urban
and rural.

She agreed with Mr. Yazza about the questionable nature of some state
data on caseloads. In response, Torres Martinez developed its own
adjusted funding formula. The traditional undercounting of Native
Americans was taken into account, as well as the bad reporting that
results from a number of assumptions being made in welfare offices based
on Hispanic surnames.

She noted that the National Tribal TANF Association has been founded as
a response to a real lack of guidance that exists now for tribes. Tribal
TANF administrators have taken it upon themselves to help each other out
with technical assistance.

Ms. Hill also spoke to the desire for a "one stop shop" system and
pointed out that sometimes-complementary benefits to TANF are found many
miles and hours away from the Tribal TANF office. Something that has
been proposed is Federal support for a demonstration project for a "one
stop shop" system.

There is also the issue of no solid definition of equitable access to
services.

The question of state matching funds is also big. This is the reason why
the vast majority of tribes have not taken on a program. In California
Torres Martinez is very fortunate that the state provides a 100% match.
However with the current budget crisis this robust match may be whittled
down. Already there has been a 50% reduction in CalWorks.

Torres Martinez has taken on the burden of sharing resources with the
other tribal TANF programs. March 13-14^th^ will be the third best
practices conference that has been hosted recently.

*Tribal TANF Today,* a magazine that focuses on Tribal TANF issues is a
solid tool for the community of tribal TANF administrators.

Sarah Donahue from Washington asked about the interplay with related
funds such as WIA dollars. Ms. Hicks responded that in some instances
tribes were grandfathered-in, but that the pot of money was quite
limited.

Jay asked what the forecast was in terms of new tribal TANF programs
being started.

Ms. Hicks noted that there are 38 programs currently serving 175 tribes.
20 plans are somewhere in the works.

Mike Pfeffer noted that two more were on their way for California.

Ms. Hicks noted that states do have a great interest in tribes starting
up their own programs because it can be a challenging population for
service.

Jay asked why there was a preference to start Tribal TANF programs under
93-638.

Mr. Yazza responded that BIAs contracting language was more amenable to
goals of building self-determination.

Jay asked whether or not the vagueness of 412 might be a benefit,
whether it afforded tribes some flexibility.

Speakers responded that 412 was an afterthought and that it gave no
guidance. To find bare bones guidance, tribes could look to the rest of
the law's language relative to states, but that did not fit.

Mr. Yazza urged listeners to not forget the tribes in this time of
possible war and to please not participate in treating them as
second-class citizens. He urged the Federal government to give the
tribes a chance.

Jay made a commitment to keep the National Tribal TANF Association in
the loop with the Taskforce and its upcoming role in the regulatory
process.

Several Taskforce members thanked the speakers for their time.

Respectfully submitted,

Jay Surdukowski

Moderator -- NRDP Welfare Reform Taskforce

**RESOURCES**

NCAI

American Indians:

Tribal Sovereignty, Devolution and Welfare Reform

Indian tribal governments and Indian families are committed to the
principle of self-sufficiency at both the community and family levels.
To move tribal families toward self-sufficiency in the short term, and
to make reservations thriving economic communities in the long term,
tribal governments will need to build an economic and social
infrastructure. Welfare reform reauthorization provides the opportunity
to make the substantial investments necessary to make this possible.

Introduction

The 1996 welfare law is an example of the national trend toward
devolution of federal resources and responsibilities to lower levels of
government. In recent years, many social service and environmental
programs have been devolved from the federal government to states and
(to differing degrees) to tribal governments. Too often, however, the
role of tribal governments in the administration of devolved programs
has been overlooked or included only as an afterthought.

Tribal governments are acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution and
hundreds of treaties, federal laws, and court cases as distinct
political entities with the inherent power to govern themselves. The
federal government has key responsibilities to tribes. The federal trust
responsibility, one of the most important doctrines in federal Indian
law, is the federal government's obligation to protect tribal
self-governance, lands, assets, resources, and treaty rights and to
carry out the directions of federal statutes and court cases. The
federal relationship with tribal governments also limits the role of
state governments on tribal lands.

Devolution has raised new issues in the federal-tribal-state
relationship and has increased the necessity and opportunity for tribal
governments to interact with state governments. Welfare reform, in
particular, has heightened the importance of collaborative tribal-state
relations.

Statistical Portrait

More than 561 federally recognized Indian tribes exist in the United
States; 227 of these are located in Alaska and the rest are located in
36 other states. Between 1990 and 2000, the nation's American Indian and
Alaska Native (AI/AN) population grew by more than 500,000, to 2.5
million people.

· The AI/AN population is young, with an estimated median age of 26.7
years, nearly 8 years younger than the median age for the population as
a whole.

· The AI/AN birthrate is 1.68 times the national average, with 28.1
births per 1,000 compared to the U.S. birthrate of 16.7.

· 53.6 percent of AI/AN children are born to unmarried mothers, compared
to 16.9 percent for the White population.

· AI/AN poverty in reservation areas is 3.9 times the U.S. average (50.7
percent compared to 13.0 percent).

· The poverty rate for AI/AN children in reservation areas is 60.3
percent, or 3 times the national average.

Section 412 of Title I of the welfare law authorizes the direct funding
of TANF to federally-recognized American Indian tribes as well as to 12
regional Native non-profit corporations and 1 reservation in Alaska.
Rather than deal individually with sovereign tribal governments in
Alaska, Congress chose to limit the authority for administering the
state's Tribal TANF programs to the 12 regional non-profits.

As of January 1, 2003, 38 Tribal TANF plans, serving 178 tribes in 15
states, have been approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, receiving just over \$114.7 million in federal funds. (Because
tribes can apply to administer TANF at any time, the number of tribal
grantees is increasing, despite the limited resources that tribes are
afforded. Nonetheless, the lack of funding prevents many tribes from
administering a Tribal TANF program.)

Also in FY 2002, 262 Tribal Childcare grantees, serving more than 500
tribes, received \$91 million in funding under the federal Childcare and
Development Block Grant. In addition, five tribes run Child Support
Enforcement programs, 78 tribal grantees administer the Native
Employment Works program, and 86 tribes administer \$15 million in
Welfare-to-Work grants.

Tribal Strategies & Innovations

Indian tribes face unique challenges in implementing welfare reform.
Many tribal communities suffer from disproportionate poverty rates;
remote, rural geography; inaccessibility of services and high cost of
service delivery; lack of economic base; inadequate training, job
opportunities, and support services; and lack of facilities and
infrastructure. Tribes also face challenges in coordinating tribally-
and state-provided services, as tribes do not have the authority to
administer various related programs (such as Medicaid and food stamps)
directly.

Tribes commonly provide childcare, employment, training, education, and
a variety of social services to needy Indian people within their service
areas. Many of these services are funded through Indian programs
authorized under the welfare law.

In addition, tribes devote significant other resources to dealing with
welfare reform requirements. For example, the Navajo Nation appropriated
approximately \$1.5 million from tribal revenues to offset startup costs
for TANF administrative planning and the development of a tribal
management information system. Some tribes, including those in Wisconsin
and Washington, also provide services to people on public assistance
through grants and contracts from state agencies.

Tribal governments have shown great enthusiasm for operating new
programs and redesigning service delivery systems. While struggling with
limited resources and the lack of employment opportunities on
reservations, tribes have made great strides in offering coordinated,
holistic support services to their tribal members. For example, the
Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota, the Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux
Tribe (South Dakota), and the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida
Indians (Alaska) have co-located employment and training services with
numerous support services. Tribal governments also have made assistance
programs and support services more accessible to their communities. For
example, the Tanana Chiefs Conference, a non-profit corporation serving
tribes in interior Alaska, has used the Tribal TANF program to fund a
part-time worker in each of its 38 isolated villages to help recipients
obtain the benefits for which they are eligible. Tribes such as the
Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe (South Dakota), the Navajo Nation
(Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah), the Lac du Flambeau Tribe (Wisconsin),
the Pullayup Tribe (Washington), and the Chickasaw Nation (Oklahoma)
have become directly involved in administering child support enforcement
programs.

Despite these strides, however, the majority of Native families are
still served by state TANF, Childcare, Employment & Training, and Child
Support Enforcement programs rather than by tribal programs.

The Next Step for Tribal TANF

A number of steps can be taken to promote successful Tribal TANF
programs:

· Innovative and successful Tribal TANF programs depend on adequate
funding. Current Tribal TANF program funding reveals multiple layers of
inequity. There are two major funding issues. First, some funding
streams that states have received are not provided to tribes, including
Maintenance of Effort dollars, performance bonuses, access to the
contingency fund and planning and start-up money under AFDC programs.

Second, some funding streams that tribes can access are not adequate and
are disproportionate to state funding to administer TANF, notably TANF
block grant funding. States received initial block grant funding based
on three funding options (or formulas) listed in the law; states could
choose a formula that benefited them, whereas tribes were assigned a
single formula, regardless of their diverse situations. Also, in the 13
states where the state has opted to provide MOE to tribal programs, MOE
negotiations are complex and continual, frequently requiring individual
negotiation and state appropriations through the state legislature on an
annual or biannual basis. MOE is also not necessarily a consistent
amount that tribes can count on and use for budget planning. Especially
in light of current state fiscal crises, many tribes cannot count on
even the most generous and well-intentioned states for MOE dollars that
states formerly contributed. Tribal governments should have adequate,
flexible, stable funding for the development and support of Tribal TANF
programs.

· Consistent with the discretion that states have in establishing their
TANF eligibility criteria, all Tribal TANF grantees should continue to
have the flexibility to define both their service area and service
population in their Tribal TANF plan. Defining the service area and
service population through the Tribal TANF plan submission process
remains the vehicle by which tribes can determine their program
eligibility and serve a population that is consistent with their
capacity and program goals.

· In the interest of integrated, consumer-oriented service delivery,
tribal governments administering TANF should have the option of making
eligibility determinations for related support programs, including
Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. (While the
states of Alaska, California, and Minnesota have out stationed food
stamp and Medicaid eligibility determination workers on reservations,
many of these workers are available in tribal facilities only once a
week or during certain hours.) Support programs are vital to ensuring
that welfare participants receive services that they need to move from
welfare to work, such as transportation, mental health, substance abuse,
and domestic violence services.

· Tribes should be eligible for direct funding under the Title XX Social
Services Block Grant, food stamps, and Title IV-E foster care
assistance. Because tribal governments do not have a tax base, matching
fund requirements should be flexible.

· The TANF reporting requirements under Section 411 of the welfare law
need to be revised. The voluminous reporting requirements are burdensome
and are not necessarily meaningful in describing recipients and their
outcomes. The HHS Secretary should be given the discretion to develop,
in consultation with tribes, reporting requirements appropriate to
tribal circumstances.

· The provisions of the welfare law that treat Native tribes in Alaska
differently than tribes in other states should be removed, enabling
individual tribes in Alaska to administer TANF. As noted above, Section
419(4)(B) of Title I of the welfare law gives the authority for direct
Tribal TANF funding and administration in Alaska to 12 regional
non-profit corporations instead of the state's federally-recognized
tribal governments. This has a dramatic impact on tribal governments
because Alaska's 227 tribes make up 40 percent of all tribes in the
United States.

In addition, Section 412(h) of the welfare law requires Tribal TANF
programs in Alaska to be "comparable" to the state-operated TANF
program. These provisions hinder self-determination and the ability of
tribes in Alaska to make tribal-specific program decisions.

· Additional federal funds should be provided for reservation-based
economic development and job creation projects. A new federal initiative
to provide tribes with dedicated resources to help create permanent,
unsubsidized jobs for recipients of public assistance is critical. In
addition, tribes helping families move from welfare to work (whether or
not they administer a Tribal TANF program) should have access to
increased economic development funding. Many economic development
funding streams are not currently available to tribes that do not have
Community Development Corporations. One important option would be to
create an Indian program that supports and promotes job creation for the
welfare population.

For more information on American Indian Tribal TANF programs or tribal
positions on the reauthorization of welfare reform, please see NCAI's
webpage at: www.ncai.org or contact Sarah Hicks at (314) 935-5896 or via
email at shicks@ncai.org.

**CALIFORNIA-NEVADA TRIBAL TANF ADMINISTRATORS' ASSOCIATION**

Contact:

510 16^th^ Street, Fourth Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 ● Phone:
(510)919-8503 ● Email: tanf@calindian.org

**BRIEFING PAPER**

**Tribal Recommendations Regarding MOE Requirements**

**3 pages**

**February 10, 2003**

(Revised)

**Summary**

Throughout the summer, fall, and winter, representatives of tribes and
tribal TANF programs attended a series of national meetings. One outcome
of these meetings was that tribes reached national consensus on the most
necessary changes to the Indian-specific provisions of PRWORA. The
attached document outlines the consensus recommendations. The primary
purpose of this paper is to point out how states would benefit from some
of these recommendations.

**Background**

The consensus recommendations were drafted in response to the Senate's
bill on TANF reauthorization, introduced during the last session of
Congress. That bill, an amended version of the House bill (HR 4737),
incorporated many important provisions of an earlier bill, S. 2484,
which had been introduced by Senator Baucus. S. 2484 pertained only to
tribal TANF. Both S. 2484 and the later full reauthorization bill
amended in the Senate enjoy wide support within Indian Country because
of the special provisions pertaining to tribal TANF programs.

Recently, we learned that Senator Baucus will reintroduce a slightly
modified version of S. 2484. As of this date, no companion legislation
has been introduced in the House, and the House version of TANF
reauthorization does not contain any new provisions pertaining to tribal
TANF.

Some of the recommendations in the attached document are meaningful only
in the context of the proposed Senate bills, but some have broader
relevance. Of course, by clear implication, each of the underlying
provisions in the Senate bill is fully supported by the Indian
community. We believe the changes proposed by the Senate, and as further
modified by these recommendations, will make an already excellent
program that much more meaningful and positive.

**Analysis**

**3-TO-1 MOE CREDIT**

-   **Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Requirements Under the 1996 Personal
    Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)**

Under the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation, states are required
to continue funding current welfare programs at no less than 80% of what
they were spending on welfare programs in 1994. This is known as the
maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. In states where current
caseloads remain close to the 1994 caseload level, or where caseloads
have grown, current funding levels meet or exceed the MOE requirement.
However, in states which have significantly reduced their caseloads, the
MOE requirement exceeds the funding necessary to meet current welfare
needs. Some states have given federal welfare money back to the federal
government because they could not spend the money fast enough on welfare
programs.

-   **How States Benefit When Tribes Serve Indian Households Under
    Tribal TANF Programs**

The 1996 federal welfare reform legislation provided Indian tribes an
opportunity to serve Indian households eligible for welfare benefits.
Tribes throughout the country have assessed the feasibility of starting
their own tribal TANF programs, or joining together with other tribes to
run a tribal TANF consortium.

High rates of poverty and unemployment exist among Indian households on
or near Indian reservations. Indian populations, both rural and urban,
present challenges for states and their local counties to serve, and as
a result, tribes and many states recognized the mutual benefits of
tribal TANF programs. States have significantly reduced their caseloads
by transferring cases to tribal TANF programs. The tribal TANF programs
take over responsibility for providing welfare services to those
households and for moving those program participants from welfare to
work.

Tribal TANF programs are often better suited to serving the needs of
tribal members and other Native Americans since program offices are
often in greater proximity to where tribal members reside, attend
school, and are able to work and arrange for child care. Tribal TANF
programs also have greater flexibility written into federal legislation
in how they can provide for economic development and employment in order
to create the needed work opportunities to move program participants
from welfare to work.

-   **How States Would Benefit from the Proposed MOE Credit**

Some states provide varying levels of matching funds to tribal TANF
programs. That is, for every dollar that the tribes within one of those
states receive from the federal government, the respective state
provides a one-to-one match. Some state administrations and legislatures
have acknowledged that tribal governments should be given every
incentive to take over Indian TANF caseload responsibility from the
state. Without this match, there would not be sufficient incentive for
tribes to assume administration for TANF because most tribes do not have
adequate funding to supplement the federal grant.

One of the tribes' proposed amendments to the welfare reform
reauthorization legislation is that a 3-to-1 MOE credit be provided to
those states that provide tribes with matching funds. If such an
amendment passes, states would receive a \$3 MOE credit for each \$1
they provide in matching funds to tribal TANF programs.

In addition to supporting tribal TANF programs, States would gain
greater budget flexibility with the 3-to1 MOE credit. For example, if a
state is currently providing \$12 million in matching funds to tribal
TANF programs, the state would receive a credit of \$36 million against
its MOE requirement. This is a \$24 million decrease in its TANF MOE
obligation that the state could then use in its general fund for other
programs or purposes.

States currently providing matching funds to tribal TANF programs should
be rewarded for their efforts and should be encouraged to continue their
efforts as well. Many states are facing budget crises and are
considering budgetary cutbacks, including a cutback in matching funds to
tribal TANF programs. The 3-to-1 MOE credit may alleviate any need to
cut back the matching funds to tribal TANF programs and may provide
greater discretion in general fund expenditures to avoid other budget
cuts.

In certain other states, where the Indian population is a much higher
percentage of the state population and the Indian recipients constitute
as much as 60% of the welfare caseload, the benefits would be even
greater. Some of these states are at a tremendous risk of having
penalties assessed against them for failing to meet the
federally-mandated work participation requirements. The 3-to-1 MOE
credit may provide some incentive for such states to contribute to
tribal TANF programs and for other states to increase the matching funds
that they provide to tribal TANF programs.

This recommendation deviates from the provisions included in previous
Senate welfare reform reauthorization bills in that it provides an
incentive to the states without costing the federal government more
money. The previous version of the Senate bill provides that the federal
government would give a 30 percent match to states that provide matching
funds to tribes. However, this is an additional cost item that will be
hard to achieve in this time of tight budgets, and may not provide as
much incentive as the no-cost option of the three-to-one MOE credit that
has been overwhelmingly supported in Indian Country.

### Room 630F.3 -- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

200 Independence Avenue, SW -- Washington, DC 20201