REPORT

ON 

TRIBAL PRIORITY

ALLOCATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

JULY, 1999
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pursuant to Congressional direction given in the FY 1999 appropriations (Senate Report 105-56), as well

as other Congressional action attempted in the 105th Congress, the Congress has clearly conveyed its

concern for the distribution of Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) funds to Federally recognized Tribes in our

Nation. TPA provides the principal source of funds for local units of Tribal Governments and agency

offices at the reservation level. Under Congressional directions, the BIA has been directed to provide

options on other methods of distributing TPA funds based on the identified need of a Tribe; however, it

provided no definition of “need” or other standards in which to measure need. Yet, it is recognized that

both Tribal governments and the BIA must accurately identify and gather data to support funding requests

for Tribal programs.

In response, the BIA joined with Tribal Leaders representative of the 12 Areas of the BIA across the

Nation to address the issue of funding need relative to the distribution of TPA funds. In January, 1998, this

joint effort was formalized through the establishment of the BIA/Tribal Workgroup on Tribal Needs

Assessment. As TPA is the core funding provided by the BIA to Tribes to assist in the operation of their

Tribal governments, this was a crucial and precedent-setting task undertaken by both the BIA and the

Tribes. The Workgroup recognized that the task at hand must include consideration of factors that are

historical, objective, and to some degree, subjective in nature. Further, it is recognized that while the

Congress wishes to base distribution of TPA funds solely on a needs basis, it should be noted that while

many Tribes view current Federal funding as inadequate to meet their needs, they also view Federal funds

as representative of the Federal trust responsibility and commitment to the American Indian and Alaska

Native.

The Workgroup, comprised of BIA and Tribal representatives, included both policy and technical

members. To address the daunting task, the Workgroup established key focus areas, including:

! National budget overview of Indian programs:

S Identify consistent criteria (by program) to assess current “unmet need”;

S Identify and compare data to national standards;

! TPA:

S Identify consistent criteria (by program) of current TPA funding levels; and,

! Scope and Definition of Federal obligation to Indian Tribes, i.e., based on legal status, treaties,

statutes, and Executive Orders.

The Workgroup met on almost a monthly basis since January, 1998, to March, 1999, formulating the

report.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations

Following are the Chapter Summaries of the Report on Tribal Priority Allocations:

Chapter 1 - Background

• The wide variations among Indian Tribes and the lands on which they live present significant

impediments to development of one or more funding formulas.

• Based upon a range of socio-economic indicators, Indian people remain severely disadvantaged

compared to the U.S. population as a whole.

• Federal Indian policy places both a legal and a moral duty on the Bureau of Indian Affairs to fulfil the

Federal trust responsibilities.

• Legislative authorities lack specific programmatic goals and prohibit imposition of standards and

reporting requirements which would be required for any for Tribe-by-Tribe comparison.

• TPA base budgets are a result of history, geography, policies, politics, and timing.

• Tribal Governments, no less than any state or local government, deserve to have their priorities

respected.

Chapter 2 - Historical and Legal Basis for Services to Tribes

• TPA programs are founded on and result from a complex and lengthy statutory and historical bases.

• TPA is the embodiment of the policy of Self-Determination and is intended to implement the unique

obligations of the United States arising from its relationship with the indigenous Indian Tribes.

• The Congress has on occasion experimented with policies that were intended to materially (and

unilaterally) alter the Federal/Tribal relationship.

• The Congress has consistently returned to the concept of dealing with the Tribes as governments and

has consistently reaffirmed its obligations to the Tribes.

Chapter 3 - Measures of Tribal Need

• Preliminary indications are that current funding meets only one-third of identified need.

• 18 Tribes nearly match the BIA support for local government services.

• Eight Northern Pueblos propose community involvement in shaping needs determination.

Chapter 4 - Measures of Tribal Revenue

• There is no statutory or regulatory requirement for Tribal Governments to report all income.

• Single Audit reports are available for only half of the Tribes; these audits contain varying amounts of

information on non-Federal revenues.

• Income derived from trust lands and resources cannot be segregated from other income.

• In an effort to create more employment opportunities, Tribes often operate businesses at a loss.

• Gaming profits range from less than $1 per member to over $500,000 per member.

• Revenue must be used not only for current operations, but also to repair 150 years of general neglect

of Indian people and Indian reservations.

Chapter 5 - Results of Tribal Consultation

• Tribal Governments wish to exercise independent decisions on the composition of base budgets.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations

• Tribal Governments are far more concerned by the unequal status of Indian people as a group

compared to the Nation as whole than they are about any perceived or real inequities among Tribes.

• The BIA does not have the ability to accurately maintain, manage, and report performance data for all

Tribes.

• There are conflicts between the laws passed by the Congress in providing Tribal flexibility in program

administration and priority setting and the information requested by the Congress as to how Federal

funds are being used by Tribes.

• Refinement of Small Tribes Initiative is required for extremely small Tribal populations.

• There is no support for reallocation of existing resources.

• Fewer than 10 percent of Indian Tribes have realistically achieved a revenue stream which would allow

them to provide a full range of services to their citizens. Given relative small proportion of BIA funds

that would be available from the TPA base of these Tribes to meet the overwhelming needs of other

Tribes and the significant increased administrative workload which would require additional BIA staff,

reallocation of base funds does not represent a cost effective solution to meet the needs in Indian

Country.

Chapter 6 - Conclusions

• Base funding to Tribal Governments should not be redistributed.

• The Federal Government does not apply means tests to State and Local Governments. These

governments are eligible for Federal funds because of their status as governments; the same principle

should apply to Tribal Governments.

• Additional detail in the BIA budget presentations may improve understanding of Tribal program

operations.

• Incentives may prove a cost effective method to encourage development of shared service delivery

among small Tribes.

• If the Congress changes the current TPA policies and procedures, an appeal process must be

established for those Tribal Governments affected by such a change.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations i

Table of Contents

Introduction - Requirements of Section 129 ........................................... 1

Chapter 1- Background .......................................................... 3

The Bureau of Indian Affairs .................................................... 3

BIA’s Constituency .......................................................... 5

BIA Programs .............................................................. 6

Program Standards .......................................................... 9

Use of TPA Funds .......................................................... 10

Reporting ................................................................. 10

BIA Budget Structure and Funding .............................................. 11

Tribal Priority Allocations - Process and Implications ................................ 13

Tribal Priorities ............................................................. 14

Reallocation of TPA Cannot be based on Simple Single Criteria ........................ 15

Source of TPA Funding Data .................................................. 15

TPA Funds Included in the Analysis ............................................. 16

Self-Governance Compacts ................................................... 16

Consolidated Tribal Government Programs ........................................ 16

Human Services Funds ....................................................... 17

Population Data ............................................................ 17

Natural Resources Funds ..................................................... 17

Indian Trust Lands Data ...................................................... 18

Distribution of TPA Funds to the Twelve Areas, with Self Governance

Compacts Included in Each Area ............................................... 18

Distribution of TPA Funds .................................................... 19

Distribution of Natural Resource Funds ........................................... 22

Distribution of TPA Funds to the Twelve Areas, and to Self Governance

Compacts as a “13th” Area .................................................... 24

Allocating Self Governance Compact Funds to Program Categories ..................... 25

Distribution of Human Services Funds to the “13th” Areas ............................. 25

Human Services Funds on a Per-Person Basis ..................................... 26

Distribution of Natural Resources Funds to the “13th” Areas ........................... 28

Reasons for Variation in Base Funding ........................................... 31

BIA Agency Offices ......................................................... 31

Congressional Add-ons ...................................................... 32

Programmatic Factors ....................................................... 32

Demographic Factors ........................................................ 33

Legal Obligations ........................................................... 33
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations ii

Newly Recognized (or Acknowledged) Tribes ..................................... 33

Small Tribes Distribution ...................................................... 33

Self-Determination and Self-Governance ......................................... 33

Chapter Summary .......................................................... 35

Chapter 2 - Historical and Legal Basis for Services to Tribes ............................. 36

Introduction ............................................................... 36

Major Federal Indian Policies .................................................. 37

Removal Policy (1800-1880's) ................................................. 38

Assimilation Policy (1887-1934) ............................................... 38

Reorganization Policy (1934-1953) ............................................. 39

Termination Policy (1953-1960) ................................................ 40

Policy of Tribal Self-Determination (1960 to Present) ................................ 41

Fulfillment of Federal Responsibilities to Tribes Through the TPA Process ................. 44

Chapter Summary .......................................................... 46

Chapter 3 - Measures of Tribal Need ............................................... 47

Table 1 - National Unmet Tribal Needs Summary ................................... 49

Table 2 - Preliminary Comparisons of Tribal Needs Non-Base Funding Summary ........... 50

Table 3 - Human Services .................................................... 51

Indian Child Welfare Act ..................................................... 51

Services to Children, Elderly and Families ......................................... 52

Table 4 - Public Safety and Justice .............................................. 52

Tribal Courts .............................................................. 53

Table 5 - Consolidated Report of Preliminary Need and Tribal Supplement

Of 18 Tribes Sampled ....................................................... 53

Eight Northern Pueblos Pilot ................................................... 54

Chapter Summary .......................................................... 55

Chapter 4 - Measures of Tribal Revenue ............................................ 56

Single Audits .............................................................. 57

Scope of this Review ........................................................ 58

Conclusions on Single Audits .................................................. 59

Concerns about Tribal Revenue Use ............................................. 59

Losses From Tribal Enterprises ................................................ 60

Fluctuations in Profitability .................................................... 60

Long-Term Debt ........................................................... 60

Net Revenues ............................................................. 60

Retained Earnings ........................................................... 61

Tribal Gaming Revenues ...................................................... 61

Average State Per Capita Expenditures by Local Governments by Funding
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations iii

Source (Table) ............................................................. 63

Gross Net Gaming Revenues (Table) ............................................ 63

Net Revenues Per Member (Table) ............................................. 64

Chapter Summary .......................................................... 66

Chapter 5 - Results of Tribal Consultations ........................................... 67

Chapter Summary .......................................................... 88

Chapter 6 - Conclusions ......................................................... 89

Chapter Summary .......................................................... 94

Appendices:

1 Description of Major Federal Programs by Budget Category .......................... 95

2 1998 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Programs Which Indicate

That Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments May Apply ...................... 99

1998 Catalog of Federally Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Programs State/Local

Government Eligibility Appears to Exclude Indian Tribes ............................. 112

3 Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) Standards ...................................... 117

Tribal Government ......................................................... 117

Human Services ........................................................... 119

Education ................................................................ 120

Public Safety and Justice .................................................... 122

Community Development .................................................... 124

Resource Management ...................................................... 125

Trust Services ............................................................ 132

Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) - NON-BASE FUNDING ......................... 135

4 Tribal Leaders Letter (includes BIA Report Outline) ................................ 136

5 BIA/Tribal Workgroup on Tribal Needs Assessment -Membership ..................... 141
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 1

INTRODUCTION

Requirements of Section 129

This report by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is in response to the directive included in Section 129 of the

Interior and Related Agencies portion of Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

for Fiscal Year 1999 bill.

Section 129 states:

a. In the event any tribe returns appropriations made available by this Act to the

Bureau of Indian Affairs for distribution to other tribes, this action shall not diminish the

Federal Government’s trust responsibility to that tribe, or the government-togovernment relationship between the United States and that tribe, or that tribe’s ability

to access future appropriations. 

b. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) shall develop alternative methods to fund

tribal priority allocations (TPA) base programs in future years. The alternatives shall

consider tribal revenues and relative needs of tribes and tribal members. No later than

April 1, 1999, the BIA shall submit a report to Congress containing its recommendations

and other alternatives. The report shall also identify the methods proposed to be used

by BIA to acquire data that is not currently available to BIA and any data gathering

mechanisms that may be necessary to encourage tribal compliance. Notwithstanding

any other provisions of law, for the purposes of developing recommendations, the

Bureau of Indian Affairs is hereby authorized access to tribal revenue-related data held

by any Federal agency, excluding information held by the Internal Revenue Service.

c. Except as provided in subsection d, tribal revenue shall include the sum of tribal

net income, however derived, from any business venture owned, held, or operated, in

whole or in part, by any tribal entity which is eligible to receive TPA on behalf of the

member or any tribe, all amounts distributed as per capita payments which are not

otherwise included in net income, and any income from fees, licenses or taxes collected

by any tribe.

d. The calculation of tribal revenues shall exclude payments made by the Federal

government in settlement of claims or judgements and income derived from lands,

natural resources, funds, and assets held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior.

e. In developing alternative TPA distribution methods, the Bureau of Indian Affairs

will take into account the financial obligations of a tribe such as budgeted health,
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 2

education and public works service costs; its compliance, obligations and spending

requirements under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; its compliance with the Single

Audit Act; and its compact with its State.

The statutory directive requires the BIA to develop alternative methods to distribute Tribal Priority Allocation

(TPA) base funds in future years, taking into account Tribal revenues and the relative needs of Tribes and Tribal

members. This directive aims at an equitable distribution of BIA resources among the Tribes.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 3

CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND

Scope of BIA Operations

Basic Legislative Authorities

Prohibition on Imposition of Program Standards

Tribal Priority Allocations

The Bureau of Indian Affairs

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides services directly or through Self-Determination contract, grant or

compact agreements with Tribes and Tribal organizations to more than 1.2 million American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 31 states. The BIA’s programs are funded and operated in a highly decentralized manner with more

than 90 percent of all appropriations expended at the local level. Nearly 55 percent of BIA funds are expended

by Tribes and Tribal organizations through contracts or Self-Governance compacts, according to the FY 1998

Annual Report. In addition, the BIA administers more than 43 million acres of Tribally-owned land, more than

11 million acres of individually-owned land held in trust, and 443,000 acres of Federally-owned land. 

Federal Indian policy and the trust responsibility are derived from the special legal and political relationship

between the Tribes and the Federal Government, embodied in treaties and other agreements, the Constitution,

statutes, and court decisions. While the BIA has been given explicit duties with respect to the trust relationship,

that relationship is between the whole of the Federal Government and each individual Tribe. Other Federal

agencies share the trust responsibility with BIA. 

Much of Federal Indian policy revolves around this special relationship, which is often broadly expressed in

terms of legal duties, moral obligations, and expectancies that have arisen from the historical dealings between

the Tribes and the Federal Government. In its narrowest sense, the special relationship is described as a trust

relationship between a trustee and the beneficiary, with explicit standards of performance often enforceable in

court. In the larger sense, the relationship has been likened to that of a protectorate in which the larger nation

extends protection to the smaller and safeguards its right to existence. 

In the last two centuries, the Congress has passed an extraordinary number of Federal laws dealing with Indian

Tribes. While the Snyder Act, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and the Indian

Education Amendments of 1978 provide the primary budgetary authorities of the BIA, numerous statutes, court

decisions, treaties and other authorities (including those passed in the early 1800s regulating trade with Indians)

continue to guide the BIA’s operations and administration. 

The BIA is unique among government agencies in many respects. It is unique in relation to its own mission and

structure. Some agencies operate programs or deliver services directly to beneficiaries; others are grant making

agencies. Even in an agency that may combine the two functions, the line of demarcation is clear and

established by statute. With few exceptions, potential beneficiaries of Federal services or grants do not have

any form of “right” to the service or to a particular share of benefits; they merely have the right of access on
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 4

equitable grounds. 

The BIA, on the other hand, serves all Federally recognized Tribes and groups. It operates either programs

or contracts for the delivery of services at the discretion of the Tribes. The Tribes also have the right to change

from direct BIA services to contracting and back again at virtually any time and for virtually any reason. The

uncertainties inherent in such a process are enormous. Further, the BIA must maintain the level of direct

services to each Tribe throughout the country while also trying to provide adequate resources for Tribal

contracting and Self-Governance compacting.

The BIA is also unique in its relationship with its Tribal constituents. It is the principal agency of the Federal

government charged with the responsibility to administer Federal Indian policy and programs and to fulfill the

Federal trust responsibility for American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and Tribal organizations. As such,

it has on the one hand certain supervisory functions, particularly those relating to trust property, and on the other

hand, it is obligated to implement a policy of Tribal Self-Determination and turn over large portions of the BIA

budget and programs to the Tribes. No other Federal agency has quite the same obligation to consult with its

constituents in the course of implementing its statutory responsibilities. 

The scope of BIA programs is broader than that of any other Federal agency. It is extensive and covers

virtually the entire range of state, local and Tribal government services, including elementary, secondary and

post-secondary education; social services; law enforcement; Tribal justice systems; business loans; etc. land

and heirship records; Tribal government support; forestry; agriculture and range land development; water

resources; fish, wildlife and parks; roads; housing; adult and juvenile detention facilities; and irrigation and

power systems.

This comprehensive scope of activities creates many unique challenges for the BIA and its Tribal constituents.

Virtually every program activity within the scope of the BIA has a counterpart in another Federal agency, which

in many cases provide Federal assistance to state and local government to conduct various functions at the local

level. Although many non-BIA Federal programs also benefit Indian Tribes and individuals, there is little or no

guidance from the Congress as to how the BIA and BIA-funded programs should relate to these larger Federal

resources.

In the BIA budget process, Indian needs compete with other Indian needs. While this is inherent in any budget,

it is of particular importance in the BIA budget. Despite more than 200 years of Federal trusteeship, Indian

people are still, as a group, the poorest people in the nation with generally the highest indicia of poverty and

related socio-economic maladies. At the same time, the most specific statutory duties of the BIA relate to its

trust obligations regarding Indian land and natural resources, creating a tension and competition between trust

and resource functions and the social and humanitarian needs of the Tribes. The BIA’s budget process is, then,

a series of tradeoffs between the need for support for the BIA’s fundamental trust functions and the need to

meet various social and economic requirements of the Tribes. Striking the balance between the immediate

poverty-related needs of the Tribes and the necessity for investment in longer term infrastructure and

development programs which would, it is presumed, keep future generations from poverty vexes both the

Administration and the Congress.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 5

Finally, the BIA is unique in that, while its budget is allocated according to specific program categories, its

contracting and compacting constituents have wide latitude to transfer funds among categories. As the Tribe’s

Self-Determination discretion has increased, the BIA’s power to target funds has consequently decreased. 

The BIA’s Constituency 

The BIA’s programs serve communities that face great challenges. According to the 1990 census, the American

Indian population increased to 1,937,391, four times the population reported in 1960. While most of this

increase is due to an increase in self-identification, a large portion is an actual population increase. Based on

this rapid rate of growth, the Census Bureau estimates that the American Indian population will reach 4.3

million, representing just over 1 percent of the population, by the year 2050. Geographically diverse, almost

half of American Indians reside on approximately 300 reservations and other restricted and trust lands located

throughout the United States. Reservations range in size from a few acres, such as the rancherias in California,

to the 17.5 million-acre Navajo reservation. Approximately 63 percent of American Indians reside in urban

areas, half of whom are concentrated in a relatively small number of cities. According to the 1990 census, more

than one-half of the American Indian population lived in just 6 states: Oklahoma, California, Arizona, Alaska,

Washington and New Mexico. 

The American Indian population is relatively young as reported by the 1990 census:

American Indians U.S. Population

Under 5 years 9.7% 7.3%

Under 18 years 34.2% 25.6%

The census also reports that the median age of American Indians is 26 years, compared to 33 years for the

population at large. This young population is in part the result of mortality rates that are higher for American

Indians than for the U.S. population. The Indian Health Service reports that the age-adjusted death rate for

American Indians is 35 percent higher than that of the general population. Infant deaths are 30 percent higher.

Accidental death is 300 percent higher. Alcoholism death is 700 percent higher. The diabetes death rate is

300-400 percent higher. Despite these alarming health status measures, the appropriations for the Indian

Health Service have lagged far behind the appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Socioeconomic measures also show that American Indians trail the general U.S. population. According to the

1990 census, American Indian median family income was $21,619 annually, compared to $35,225 for the U.S.

population. More significant is the comparison of 1980 to 1990 census data and socioeconomic trends which

indicate that American Indians are slipping farther behind the U.S. population. In 1979, 28 percent of

American Indians were living below the poverty level, compared to 12 percent of the U.S. population. By

1989, 31 percent of American Indians were living in poverty, compared to 13 percent of the U.S. population.

Other socioeconomic indicators reveal the following:

American Indians U.S. Population

High School Graduates 65.5% 75.2%

4 or More Years of College 9.3% 20.3%

Single Parent Households 35.8% 21.4%
1

 This figure includes both on- and off-reservation Indian residents (roughly 1/3 and 2/3 respectively); the

figure is much higher on-reservation where jobs are more scarce.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 6

Unemployment 14.4%16.3%

The BIA’s 1997 Indian labor force estimates show that the situation on-or-near reservations is worse. There

are 965,000 Indians of employable age. Nearly 205,000 are not available for work. Of the remaining 760,000

Indians, only half are employed.

In summary, American Indians are younger and have higher levels of poverty, unemployment, single parent

families, fertility, and mortality than the U.S. population at large. Trends are deteriorating for this highly

vulnerable population.

BIA Programs

Until quite recently, the BIA’s service programs were not authorized by specific program statutes, but grew

out of the general Federal/Tribal relationship, the needs of the Tribes, the duties inherent in the trust

responsibility, and treaty and other obligations. The Congress has not enacted substantive legislation for most

BIA programs; therefore the goals for Indian programs are quite general in nature, relying on the authority

contained in the 1921 Snyder Act (Title 25 U.S.C. § 13):

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior,

shall direct, supervise, and expend such moneys as Congress may from time to time

appropriate, for the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the

United States for the following purposes:

General support and civilization, including education.

For relief of distress and conservation of health.

For industrial assistance and advancement and general administration of

Indian property.

For extension, improvement, operation, and maintenance of existing Indian

irrigation systems and for development of water supplies.

For the enlargement, extension, improvement, and repair of the buildings

and grounds of existing plants and projects.

For the employment of inspectors, supervisors, superintendents, clerks, field

matrons, farmers, physicians, Indian police, Indian judges, and other employees.

For the suppression of traffic in intoxicating liquor and deleterious drugs.

For the purchase of horse-drawn and motor-propelled passenger-carrying

vehicles for official use.

And for the general and incidental expenses in connection with the

Administration of Indian affairs.

The BIA relies exclusively on the Snyder Act for its authority to operate many programs, such as:
2

The Indian Tribal Justice Support Act, (25 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) does provide specific guidance on the factors

to be considered in developing a formula to support Tribal justice systems and identifies the specific purposes for

which financial assistance may be used; however, the statute specifically requires that funds for this Act be

appropriated outside of Tribal Priority Allocations (25 U.S.C. § 3621(f). No appropriations have been made under

this authority; Tribal justice systems are still funded under TPA.

3 General assistance payment levels have been established through Appropriations. 

4

 The Higher Education Grant Authorization Act, (25 U.S.C. § 3301 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary to award

grants to Tribal governments in lieu of Self-Determination contracts to administer the scholarship program, but relies

on the Snyder Act for the underlying authority to award scholarship grants to individuals.

5

 The American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act, (25 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq.) includes specific

purposes and objectives; however, implementing regulations have not been issued and the initial assessment of the

condition of agricul-tural lands which is required by the Act (to establish a baseline from which to measure

improvements to agricultural productivity) has not been funded.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 7

Tribal Government –

Community Services General;

Other Aid to Tribal Government;

New Tribes;

Tribal Courts;2 and

Small Tribes Distribution.

Human Services –

Services to Children, Elderly and Families;

Welfare Assistance;3

Housing Improvement Program; and

Other Human Services (Tribal Design).

Education –

Scholarships;4

Adult Education; 

TCCC Supplements to Grants; and

Other Education (Tribal Design).

Public Safety and Justice –

Community Fire Protection; and

Other Public Safety and Justice (Tribal Design).

Resources Management

Natural Resources, General;

Agriculture;5

Agriculture Extension Services;
6

 The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (25 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq.) requires the establishment of

a formula to determine Tribes eligible for forestry support and to determine the level of assistance appropriate for

each eligible Tribe. The formula established pursuant to regulations (25 CFR § 163.36) is used only to allocate

forestry appropriations which are funded through the Non-Recurring Programs activity; the formula is not used to

distribute those funds included in TPA.

7

 The Indian Energy Resources Act (25 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) authorized a grant program within BIA to support

training and education of Tribal employees, development of Tribal energy inventories, development and enforcement

of Tribal laws and regulations, and the development of a Tribal infrastructure to regulate environmental quality. 

Implementing regula-tions have not been issued nor have funds been provided to implement this grant program.

8

 The Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) was initially operated as a competitive grant program. 

At the recommendation of the Joint Task Force on Reorganization, the available funds were allocated to each Tribe’s

base budget. While the initial distribution was made using population data, Tribes may increase or decrease the

amounts originally trans-ferred. Tribal funding currently ranges from a few hundred dollars to approximately

$700,000. In authorizing appropriations, ICWA actually relies on the general authority of the Snyder Act: “Funds for

the purposes of this chapter may be appropriated pursuant to the provisions of section 13 of this title” (25 U.S.C. §

1933(b)).

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 8

Forestry;6

Water Resources;

Wildlife and Parks; and

Minerals and Mining.7

Other programs have program specific statutory authorizations. The Indian Child Welfare Act8 is intended

to establish minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families, and to ensure

that, when children must be placed in foster or adoptive homes, the homes reflect the values of the Indian

culture. The Act also authorizes programs for providing support to Tribes in the operation of child and

family service programs.

The Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) Act authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts with states, local

governments, and private institutions for the “education, medical attention, agricultural assistance, and social

welfare. . . of Indians. . .” Until the passage of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance

Act, the JOM funds were used by public school districts to either defray the costs of educating Indian

children or provide additional services to Indian children attending public schools. Recognizing that states

are obligated to provide a public education to Indian children, JOM funds were subsequently designated

“to supplement not supplant” state and district education spending for Native American students attending

public schools on or off reservation. The funding formula was based upon the average state per pupil

expenditures. Further refinements to the formula narrowed the differences in the distributions among the

states by establishing a floor and a ceiling on the per pupil costs that were used to calculate the JOM

distribution. This formula was used to transfer JOM funds to the base Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)

budget in the mid-1990s. The bulk of the JOM funds are now used by Indian Tribes to provide additional

education services, rather than having such services provided through the state or local school district. As

part of the TPA base, Tribes can increase or decrease the amounts initially transferred to TPA for this

program.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 9

Title 25 U.S.C. § 309 authorizes “a program of vocational training that provides for vocational counseling

or guidance, institutional training in any recognized vocation or trade, apprenticeship, and on the job training

.” While the amounts included within TPA are subject to Tribal priority setting, the implementing regulations

(25 C.F.R Parts 26 and 27) establish eligibility criteria for the individuals to be served.

Appropriations for road construction and maintenance are authorized by Title 25 U.S.C. § 318a. A

formula is used to distribute available appropriations, based on miles of roads in the system and the type

of road surface. A portion of the funds provided from Highway Trust Funds may also be used for road

maintenance.

In addition to subject specific programs, the BIA also operates (or contracts or compacts with Tribes to

operate) certain general programs. The budget lines for Consolidated Tribal Government Program (CTGP)

and Self-Governance Compacts really describe award mechanisms rather than programs. Within a CTGP

Self-Determination contract or a Self-Governance compact, Tribes administer a number of programs under

a single budget line.

Contract Support and the Indian Self-Determination Fund defray the costs of Tribal administrative services

that support the delivery of program services. Available funds are distributed equitably as a percentage of

the indirect cost rate negotiated by the Tribe and the Office of Inspector General.

Trust Services include a range of activities that are required to manage lands that are held in trust or

restricted status. While Indian Tribes may operate trust programs under Self-Determination or SelfGovernance awards, the responsibility to ensure these functions are carried out rests with the Federal

government. A number of these issues are being addressed as part of the Trust Management Improvement

Project.

General Administration reflects the BIA’s costs of maintaining a Federal presence on Indian reservations.

The BIA has contracted with the National Academy of Public Administration to review administrative

operations at all levels of the organization and to make recommendations for improvements. This study will

be completed during FY 1999 and should provide a strong foundation for appropriate allocation of BIA

administrative staff and resources.

Program Standards

While the lack of specificity in authorizing statutes usually can be addressed through regulations or through

specific performance criteria included in contract or grant awards, the substantive legislation governing BIA

awards to Indian Tribes removes this authority. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance

Act (ISDEAA) provides that:

Proposal to redesign program, activity, function, or service. – Upon providing

notice to the Secretary, a tribal organization that carries out a nonconstruction,

Self-Determination contract may propose a redesign of a program, activity, function,
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 10

or service carried out by the tribal organization under the contract, including any

nonstatutory program standard, in such manner as to best meet the local

geographic, demographic, economic, cultural, health, and institutional needs of the

Indian people and tribes served under the contract. (25 U.S.C. 450j(j).

Rules and Regulations. -- Except as may be specifically authorized in this

subsection, or in any other provision of this subchapter, the Secretary of the Interior

and the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not promulgate any

regulation, nor impose any nonregulatory requirement, relating to SelfDetermination contracts, except that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary

of Health and Human Services may promulgate regulations under this subchapter

relating to chapter 171 of title 28, commonly known as the “Federal Tort Claims

Act,” the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), declination and

waiver procedures, appeal procedures, reassumption procedures, discretionary grant

procedures for grants awarded under section 450h of this title, property donation

procedures arising under section 450j(f) of this title, internal agency procedures

relating to implementation of this subchapter, retrocession and tribal organization

relinquishment procedures, contract proposal contents, conflicts of interest,

construction, programmatic reports and data requirements, procurement standards,

property management standards, and financial management standards. (25 U.S.C.

§ 450k(a)(1))

Federal program guidelines, manuals, or policy directives.-- Except as specifically

provided in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the

Contractor is not required to abide by program guidelines, manuals, or policy

directives of the Secretary, unless otherwise agreed to by the Contractor and the

Secretary, or otherwise required by law. (25 U.S.C. § 450l © paragraph (b)(11))

[Emphasis added.]

These provisions give Tribes wide latitude in operating programs as they deem most appropriate and

require that non-statutory standards be separately negotiated in each contract. Because there are no

statutory standards for most of the TPA programs, the BIA has very limited ability to specify programmatic

standards or obtain consistent data across programs from all Tribes. The BIA and the Tribes will work

together to develop standards and data reporting in annual funding agreements and contracts to adequately

address accomplishments for Government Performance and Results Act reports and to report progress in

satisfying Tribal needs.

Use of TPA Funds

Through both the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and the reprogramming

procedures adopted by the Committees on Appropriations, Tribes determine relative program priorities

in the budget formulation process. Tribes also have the ability to reallocate funds from one program to

another after appropriations are enacted. The BIA supports this flexibility because Tribal needs change
9

 The base numbers used in this report are FY 1998 appropriations. FY 1998 was selected because budget

planning and appropriations were completed before this report was due, the funds were completely allocated and

executed, and the FY 1998 annual financial statement is completed. This makes FY 1998 the most recent year for

which the BIA has complete financial information.

Because the substance of this report is the issue of TPA allocations to Tribes from an appropriations bill, the BIA

attempted to consistently use the data base of FY 1998 enacted. However, it must be noted that financial resources

for any particular program may come not only from a current appropriation action, but carry-overs from previous

periods and/or supplemental appropria-tions and/or authorized transfers and reprogramming. The resulting apparent

inconsistency occurs when any particular point is used to measure funds provided to Tribes. Such differences will

appear in the report when comparing the detailed data base for Self-Governance Tribes against the detailed data base

for all other Tribes.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 11

during the 18-month period between budget formulation and the beginning of the fiscal year. 

Reporting

Given the statutory limitations on imposition of program standards for Tribally-operated programs and the

ability of the Tribes to redesign program operations, the reporting requirements identified in regulation

provide that: “Unless required by statute, there are no mandatory reporting requirements.”

The statutory reporting requirements for Self-Determination and Self-Governance awards are limited to

submission of the report required by the Single Audit Act. This report includes the results of a third-party

audit of the Tribe’s financial statements, statements regarding the system of internal controls employed by

the Tribe to protect assets, and a report on Tribal compliance with those Federal laws common to all

Federal assistance awards. Self-Determination Tribes provide annual reports in narrative form on their

program operations. The BIA provides the Congress with reports on Self-Governance Tribes funding with

Tribal comments included. However, these reports provide no standard information about program

accomplishments.

Resolving issues of reporting is in the best interests of the BIA and the Tribes. If the basis for future

increases in TPA is related to Tribal needs, a means of reporting accomplishments measured against

standards acceptable to the Tribes, the Administration, and the Congress is necessary to provide credibility

to such a process.

BIA Budget Structure and Funding9

The BIA budget is large and complex. Prior to 1993, programs were categorized based on the BIA’s

primary organizational components, which did not necessarily mirror the major “sectors” of responsibility

at the local government level. From the Tribes’ perspective, the budget was made more understandable

in 1993 when the Appropriations Subcommittee approved its restructure to the manner in which it is

organized today. The restructure was based on a proposal by the Joint Tribal/DOI/BIA Task Force on

Reorganization of the BIA, which realigned the budget for ongoing “Operation of Indian Programs” in major

components based on its distribution and use. The components include:
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 12

C Tribal Priority Allocations: Budget resources that are part of recurring “base funding” at the local

Tribal level. The Task Force’s goal was to see nearly all of the local programs of the BIA included

in this category over time, except those for school operations.

C Other Recurring Programs: Programs operated each year at the local level that are not part of the

Tribes’ base funding, but are distributed by formula or some other method. This included School

Operations for the BIA-financed schools. These programs are largely distributed according to (1)

earmarks, as in the fisheries programs, or (2) by formula, as in the school operations programs.

C Non-Recurring Programs: Programs that are temporary projects at given locations. Resources are

moved around from location to location based on need, or were subject to competitive grant

processes.

The above three components contain the funds for programs and activities at the Tribal level. The next

three budget components deal with activities of the BIA:

C Area Office Operations: General managerial and support functions carried on in the 12 Area

Offices.

C Central Office Operations: Headquarters functions carried on in Washington, D.C. and in other key

central support offices located in different parts of the country.

C Special Programs and Pooled Overhead: Programs operated at locations other than the Tribal level

(such as Haskell Indian Nations University), and general BIA overhead costs that support overall

BIA operations.

The total appropriation for BIA in FY 1998 was $1.703 Billion, including supplementals. Included within

this total appropriation were:

Operation of Indian Programs $1.530 Billion

Construction $125 million

Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements $43 million

Indian Guaranteed Loan Program $5 million

Total $1.703 Billion

TPA is a budget activity (the first level of subdivision in an account) within the Operation of Indian

Programs account (OIP). Funding for OIP activities in FY 1998 was as follows:
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 13

Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) $757 million

Other Recurring Programs $549 million

Non-Recurring Programs $61 million

Central Office Operations $47 million

Area Office Operations $41 million

Special Programs and Pooled Overhead $74 million

Total $1.530 Billion

The budget activities are further subdivided into subactivities, program elements, and program subelements.

The subactivities are Tribal Government, Human Services, Education, Public Safety and Justice,

Community Development, Resources Management, Trust Services and General Administration. While the

subactivities repeat throughout the structure of the OIP account, the program elements and subelements

are different for the various budget activities. A more complete description of the program elements and

subelements for TPA is found in Appendix 1.

The language of Section 129 refers to TPA “base” programs. Not all of the $757 million in TPA is part

of the Tribes’ base funding. Most program elements and subelements within TPA have been allocated to

a Tribe’s (or BIA agency’s) TPA “base.” Four specific programs (Contract Support, Welfare Assistance,

Housing Improvement Program and Road Maintenance) have not been allocated to the Tribes’ base

amounts, with the exception of a handful of Self-Governance Tribes. Instead, they are allocated annually

by formula. In addition to these four programs, there are other programs in TPA that are not appropriated

directly into Tribal base funding, but later became part of a Tribe’s base. New Tribes funding stays in the

TPA budget without transfer to a Tribe’s base for the first three years of a new Tribe’s funding history.

After three years, it is transferred into a Tribe’s base and disappears from the New Tribes line. The Indian

Self-Determination Fund for new and expanded P.L. 93-638 contracts is not initially distributed to the

base, but transferred to Contract Support after use in a given year. When TPA is reduced by those

elements not included in Tribal base funding, the level of FY 1998 funding in Tribal TPA bases was only

$510 million. In FY 1999, the Congress removed the Law Enforcement program element from TPA.

Therefore, for purposes of comparison, Law Enforcement funding must be deducted from the FY 1998

TPA base leaving $436 million at issue.

Tribe-to-Tribe comparisons are complicated by many factors. For example, a single line (program

element) within TPA contains all funding for Self-Governance Compacts. Most Self-Governance Tribes

have combined all sources of BIA funding into their compacts, including not only TPA, but also funds for

Other Recurring and Non-Recurring programs. While Self-Governance Tribes have all these funds in their

TPA bases, one cannot simply compare Self-Governance base funding with non-Self-Governance Tribes

that do not have the same sources of funds included in their base.
10 In the past several years, increases to TPA have been line specific, (i.e., increases for Welfare

Assistance, Contract Support and New Tribes and Small Tribes, in particular). 

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 14

Tribal Priority Allocations - Process and Implications

Managing and maintaining a budgeting system that allows for input from 554 Tribes is increasingly complex.

TPA is a unique part of the Federal Indian budget that relies upon Tribal governments to identify spending

priorities based upon the most critical needs of their respective communities. Shifting resources away from

TPA deprives the Tribal governments of the power to decide how scarce Federal funds should be

allocated.

The TPA budgeting process begins in early spring with the BIA requesting Tribes to submit their TPA

requests at several different budget levels for the succeeding Federal fiscal year. Tribes are requested to

prioritize their spending needs at the levels of 90 percent and 100 percent of the amount received in the

previous year. Tribes are also requested to prioritize funding requests at several levels above what they

received in the previous last year. These levels are based on Departmental guidance, which comes out in

late spring or early summer. Tribal data is combined with agency budget data by the Area offices and then

forwarded to the Central Office, where it is summarized. This information is then available at the BIA

National Budget Meetings, which are usually held in May.

During the TPA budgeting process, Tribes are able to re-prioritize their existing base amounts and to set

priorities for any increases or identify adjustments for any decreases. Following the BIA National Budget

Meeting, senior BIA officials confer and make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs.

In early or mid-summer, the BIA submits its budget request to the Department.

In early September following final Secretarial decisions, the Department submits its request to OMB, which

provides its initial “passback” around Thanksgiving. From that period until early January, appeals are

heard and final decisions are made by the Department and OMB. The budget is then submitted to the

Congress in February. During the budget formulation process, the relative priorities set by the Tribes

generally remain the same, although the total amount being requested for TPA will vary. In order for Tribes

to provide increases for higher priority programs, they have to decrease funding for programs. 

The overall national levels of funding for Indian Priority System (“IPS”, the predecessor to TPA) programs

increased slightly from 1981 to 1990, but not enough to keep pace with inflation, population growth, or

need. Some Tribes persuaded the Congress to provide appropriations “add-ons" for programs such as

law enforcement or social services. The Congress would appropriate additional funds for those Tribes and

these funds would be added to the Tribe’s base funding amount. Some isolated and poorer Tribes did not

have the resources to advocate for additional funding from the Congress for their programs, and disparities

in Tribal base funding emerged and were made permanent. 

During the early 1990s, the Congress began to provide general increases for the TPA program. The Tribal

priorities established during the TPA process were then used to distribute general increases to Tribes.10
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 15

All general increases and decreases have been allocated on a pro-rata basis, i.e., every Tribe receiving the

same percent change with no regard for Tribal needs. The existing disparities became larger.

One objective of the system was to move programs that were located in “Other Recurring Programs” to

“Tribal Priority Allocations” where, after a fair and equitable need based distribution was made, the

amounts would be added to each Tribe’s funding base. A specific set of steps to arrive at this distribution

was laid out by the Task Force to ensure that all Tribes had input into the final formulas that would be used.

Johnson O’Malley, Welfare Assistance, Road Maintenance, Housing Improvement and Contract Support

programs were placed in the TPA Activity in the budget, but only the Johnson O’Malley program has

become part of the Tribal bases.

Tribal Priorities

For years, Tribes have placed their highest priorities on overall increases to Tribal Priority Allocations.

These would expand Tribal base funding and permit each Tribe to determine how additional resources are

allocated. Increases that fall short of increased costs due to inflation and pay adjustments means a loss of

purchasing power at the local level. Only partial pay cost adjustments were added for 1999. No increases

have been available for inflation on non-pay related costs for several years. 

Contract Support has been listed as the Tribes’ second highest priority for a number of years, because it

finances Tribal government management and accounting capacity represented by indirect costs that must

be allocated under Federal Cost Principles to each program, whether funded or not. Contract Support

is the subject of much work and discussion during 1999. Due to the growth in Tribal requirements and a

number of lawsuits, the Congress included language in the 1999 appropriations act to limit Federal liability

to the amounts appropriated. The Congress also placed a moratorium on new contacts and compacts

within both the Indian Health Service and the BIA in FY1999. Consistent with the moratorium, no funds

were appropriated for the Indian Self-Determination Fund to provide for new contracts or compacts for

FY 1999.

Reallocation of TPA Cannot be based on Simple Single Criteria

This section presents an analysis of the distribution of BIA’s Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) funds on a

nationwide basis. A major focus of this section is to describe the methodological problems that must be

solved in analyzing the distribution of TPA funds.

In FY 1998, there was $757 million in TPA funds available to BIA Agencies and Tribes. TPA made up

almost half of the BIA’s operating budget of $1.5 billion. Approximately half of the TPA funds were spent

by Tribes through Self-Determination contracts or Self-Governance compacts.

Of the total amount of TPA funds, approximately $508 million, or 67 percent, were "base" funds that were
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 16

dedicated to a specific BIA Agency or a specific Tribe as part of the on-going TPA base for that Agency

or Tribe. Another $249 million (33 percent) was provided to 4 TPA "non-base" programs -- Contract

Support, Welfare Assistance, Housing Improvement and Road Maintenance. The non-base program funds

are not a part of the on-going TPA base for each Agency or Tribe. Only the base TPA funds are analyzed

here.

Of the total amount of TPA base funds, approximately $124 million, or 24 percent, were provided to

Tribes through Self-Governance compacts. This report uses two approaches to analyze Self-Governance

compact funds. The first approach is to include the Self-Governance funds as a part of the TPA funds for

the 12 BIA Areas. The second approach is to analyze the Self-Governance funds as a “13th” Area.

In order to analyze the distribution of TPA funds, several methodological problems must be addressed:

What is the source of TPA funding data?

! Which TPA funds should be included in the analysis, and which should be excluded?

! How should Self-Governance compact funds be treated?

! How should Consolidated Tribal Government Program (CTGP) funds be handled?

! How should human services funds be analyzed?

! What is the source of population data?

! How should natural resources funds be analyzed?

! What is the source of Indian trust lands data?

These issues are discussed in the following section(s).

Source of TPA Funding Data

The data used for this analysis were the TPA allocations for the FY 1998 enacted appropriation. The

format is identical to those in the President's Budget Request tables in the back of the BIA Budget

Justifications and Annual Performance Plan. This data are readily available from the Central Budget Office,

but required some additional inquiries to collect the details of Self-Governance compacts and the

Consolidated Tribal Government Programs as discussed later.

TPA Funds Included in the Analysis

Only the "base" TPA funds are included in the analysis. The base TPA funds are funds that are identified

with a specific Agency or a specific Tribe and included as a part of the on-going TPA funding base for the

Agency or the Tribe. The total amount identified traditionally as TPA base funding in FY 1998 was

approximately $508 million. However, after removal of non-base program funding from the SelfGovernance compacts, the total TPA base was $484 million, and the allocation for Self-Governance

compacts went from $124 million to slightly over $100 million. The non-base funding found in compacts

includes those categories described below, and includes funding from other activities such as NonRecurring and Other Recurring Programs found in the Operation of Indian Programs (OIP).
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 17

The "non-base" TPA funds are Contract Support, Welfare Assistance, the Housing Improvement Program

and Road Maintenance. The "non-base" TPA funds are allocated to Agencies and Tribes on an annual

basis and are not identified with the on-going base funding for each Agency or Tribe. The total amount of

non-base TPA funds in FY 1998 was approximately $249 million. This amount grew to $273 million after

all adjustment to remove non-base funding from compacts.

The TPA funds were broken down into three categories -- human services, natural resources and general

administration. The human services programs were analyzed in relation to service population and the

natural resources funds were analyzed in relation to Indian trust lands. The distribution of general

administration funds is not addressed.

Self-Governance Compacts

The BIA funding for Self-Governance compacts is included in the TPA activity in the BIA budget. In the

TPA tables in the back of the BIA Budget Justifications to the Congress, the funds for Self-Governance

compacts are listed separately from the TPA allocations to the 12 Areas and the non-compact Tribes.

The Self-Governance compact funds in the Budget Justifications are displayed as one line-item -- SelfGovernance -- with no indication of how the funds are spent by program area. In order to compare the

Self-Governance funds to the non-compact TPA funds, the Self-Governance funds must be "allocated" to

three program areas -- human services, natural resources and general administration. This was

accomplished by acquiring the details of each compact from the financial section of the Office of SelfGovernance.

Consolidated Tribal Government Programs

Many Tribes have combined the TPA funding for several Self-Determination contracts into one

Consolidated Tribal Government Program (CTGP) contract. As with the Self-Governance compacts, the

“Green Book” does not reveal how much of the CTGP funds are spent for human services or for natural

resources. The BIA used a data call to the Area Offices to acquire the allocation to each program that

each Tribe has combined into a CTGP contract to produce the Areawide and national figures in this

Chapter.

Human Services Funds

The human services funds for each Area are aggregated in order to compare the human services funds to

the service population for each Area and to analyze the distribution of human services funds on a perperson basis. The human services category used in this report includes the TPA program elements

described earlier in this Chapter in the section BIA Program under the subactivities of Tribal Government,

Human Services, Education, Public Safety and Justice, and Community Development.

Population Data
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 18

The source of the population data used to analyze the distribution of human services funds is the BIA Indian

Service Population and Labor Force Estimates report for 1997. Most Tribes submit population data for

the report, which is compiled every two years. If a Tribe does not submit data, the data is then compiled

by the Tribal Operations Officer at the BIA Agency.

The limitations of the BIA population data should be recognized. For many "reservation" Tribes, service

population means the number of Indian people living on or near Tribal lands who are eligible for services

from the Tribe or the BIA. "Near" Tribal lands includes communities located in the counties adjacent to

reservation lands. In addition, most reservation Tribes require at least one-quarter Indian blood to be

eligible for membership in the Tribe and to be eligible for services.

The Tribes in the Muskogee and Anadarko Areas use a different definition for service population, since

there are no reservations in Oklahoma. Some of the service areas, which are based on the Tribes’ last

existing reservations, are larger than those for most reservation Tribes. In addition, the membership

requirements for Tribes in the Muskogee Area are much broader than for most Tribes.

In the Juneau Area, there are long-standing uncertainties about the status and boundaries of Native lands.

The BIA population report provides data for Native villages and Indian Tribes in Alaska. The report also

identifies a substantial number of Native people as "at-large" and not necessarily identified with a specific

village or Tribe.

Because of the factors described above, the population data are not consistent from Area to Area.

However, the 1997 BIA report is the most recent, complete set of population data for Indian Tribes and

Alaska Native villages. For the purposes of this report, the service population data are used. In future

studies of human services funding, the enrollment data should be used for comparative purposes.

Natural Resources Funds

In order to compare the TPA base funds spent for natural resources programs, the natural resources funds

for each Area are aggregated. The natural resources category in this report includes the program elements

described earlier in this Chapter in the section BIA Program under the subactivities of Resources

Management and Trust Services.

Indian Trust Lands Data

The source of Indian trust lands data is based on the BIA Report of Indian Lands for 1985. While the

1985 report is the most recent published report, the BIA collects periodically estimates of current status.

This report used BIA internal estimates by Tribe for the year ending December 31, 1996. When the BIA

prepares it annual report for 1998, it intends to include Tribal detail of land base.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF TPA FUNDS TO THE TWELVE AREAS, WITH SELF-
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 19

GOVERNANCE COMPACT FUNDS INCLUDED IN EACH AREA

In FY 1998, approximately $484 million in TPA base funds were allocated to the 12 Areas and to SelfGovernance compacts:

FY 1998 TPA BASE FUNDING BY AREA

(Based on the FY 1998 Enacted)

Area Self-Gov. Allocation Other TPA Allocation Total TPA Funds

Aberdeen 0 51,844,870 51,844,870 

Albuquerque 910,678 31,992,351 32,903,029 

Anadarko 2,877,603 17,144,551 20,022,154 

Billings 2,431,318 27,338,825 29,770,143 

Eastern 0 26,386,571 26,386,571 

Juneau 32,916,175 23,657,703 56,573,878 

Minneapolis 13,791,070 21,387,321 35,178,391 

Muskogee 16,990,218 10,956,941 27,947,159 

Navajo 0 48,631,672 48,631,672 

Phoenix 3,742,331 54,506,291 58,248,622 

Portland 21,834,173 45,272,368 67,106,541 

Sacramento 4,849,001 24,107,087 28,956,088 

TOTALS 100,342,567 383,226,551 483,569,118

The following chart displays the percent of total TPA base dollars, including Self-Governance compact

funds, allocated to each Area:

FY 1998 TPA FUNDS BY AREA

Including Self-Governance

Area Total Allocation Percent of Total

Portland 67,106,541 13.9%

Phoenix 58,248,622 12.0%

Juneau 56,573,878 11.6%

Aberdeen 51,844,870 10.7%

Navajo 48,631,672 10.1%

Minneapolis 35,178,391 7.3%

Albuquerque 32,903,029 6.8%

Billings 29,770,143 6.1%

Sacramento 28,956,088 6.0%

Muskogee 27,947,159 5.8%

Eastern 26,386,571 5.5%

Anadarko 20,022,154 4.1%

TOTALS 483,569,118 100.0%

Of the total TPA base funds, 79.3 percent were allocated to BIA Agencies or to Tribes with SelfDetermination contracts. The other 20.7 percent were allocated to Tribes with Self-Governance compacts.

Standing alone, these number are not particularly enlightening. While the Portland Area receives four times

the amount received by the Anadarko Area, without knowing something of the purposes for which the
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 20

funds were provided and spent, no helpful conclusions can be drawn.

DISTRIBUTION OF TPA FUNDS

Two tests are more useful for analyzing the distribution of TPA funds. The first is to analyze the distribution

of human services funds per person. The other is to analyze the distribution of natural resources funds per

acre.

The following table shows the distribution of funds among the areas after allocating Self-Governance and

CTGP funds into the various programs from which the funds were derived.

FY 1998 TPA BASE FUNDS BY AREA

INCLUDING SELF-GOV. COMPACTS*

Area Human Services Natural Resources Gen. Admin. Total Allocation

Aberdeen 38,599,398 9,716,602 3,528,870 51,844,870 

Albuquerque 21,989,024 8,428,550 2,485,455 32,903,029 

Anadarko 14,694,061 3,832,904 1,495,189 20,022,154 

Billings 19,519,665 8,164,852 2,085,626 29,770,143 

Eastern 19,979,230 5,431,011 976,330 26,386,571 

Juneau 42,923,378 10,551,906 2,911,287 56,573,878 

Minneapolis 26,332,216 6,530,993 2,315,182 35,178,391 

Muskogee 21,157,061 4,977,723 1,812,375 27,947,159 

Navajo 39,857,512 8,394,845 379,315 48,631,672 

Phoenix 42,595,509 11,555,486 4,097,627 58,248,622 

Portland 34,403,881 27,564,088 5,138,572 67,106,541 

Sacramento 23,842,450 4,049,804 1,063,834 28,956,088 

TOTALS 346,081,197 109,198,764 28,289,157 483,569,118

*Self-Gov. funds allocated by program area.

Most of the TPA base funds (71.6 percent) were allocated to human services programs, on a national

basis. Only 22.6 percent of the TPA base funds were allocated to natural resource programs, and 5.9

percent were spent for general administration. Interestingly, while the Portland Area receives by far the

largest allocation, the disparity is primarily attributable to the high percentage of natural resources funds.

The following chart displays the allocation of TPA base human services funds in FY 1998:
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 21

HUMAN SERVICES FUNDS BY AREA*

Area Human Services Allocation Percent of Total

Juneau 42,923,378 12.4%

Phoenix 42,595,509 12.3%

Navajo 39,857,512 11.5%

Aberdeen 38,599,398 11.2%

Portland 34,403,881 9.9%

Minneapolis 26,332,216 7.6%

Sacramento 23,842,450 6.9%

Albuquerque 21,989,024 6.4%

Muskogee 21,157,061 6.1%

Eastern 19,979,230 5.8%

Billings 19,519,665 5.6%

Anadarko 14,694,061 4.2%

TOTALS 346,081,197 100.0%

 *Including Self Governance funds.

The following chart displays the BIA service population for each Area:

BIA SERVICE POPULATION

1997 BIA Labor Force Report

Area Service Population Percent of Total

Muskogee 346,368 17.1%

Navajo 234,786 16.3%

Aberdeen 140,949 9.8%

Portland 129,888 9.0%

Phoenix 126,397 8.8%

Juneau 109,259 7.6%

Minneapolis 89,487 6.2%

Albuquerque 62,669 4.3%

Sacramento 60,174 4.2%

Anadarko 50,613 3.5%

Eastern 50,196 3.5%

Billings 41,961 2.9%

TOTALS 1,442,747 100.0%

Another way to analyze the distribution of human services funds is to analyze the funding per person for the

12 Areas:

TPA HUMAN SERVICES FUNDS PER PERSON

FY 1998 TPA Base Funds, 1997 Service Population

Area Human Services Funding Service Population Funding per Person

Billings $19,519,665 41,961 465.19 

Eastern 19,979,230 50,196 398.02 

Sacramento 23,842,450 60,174 396.23 

Juneau 42,923,378 109,259 392.86 
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 22

Albuquerque 21,989,024 62,669 350.76 

Phoenix 42,595,509 126,397 337.00 

TPA HUMAN SERVICES FUNDS PER PERSON (CONTINUED)

Area Human Services Funding Service Population Funding per Person

Anadarko 14,694,061 50,613 290.32 

Aberdeen 38,599,398 140,949 273.85 

Portland 34,403,881 129,888 264.87 

Navajo 39,857,512 234,786 169.76 

Muskogee 21,157,061 346,368 61.08 

TOTALS $346,081,197 1,442,747 239.88 

The national average expenditure of TPA human services base dollars per person is $239.88. Ten Areas

receive more than the average and two Areas receive significantly less than the average. The disparities

among the areas are striking, with the Billings Area receiving over 750 percent more per person than the

Muskogee Area. At the same time, this simple analysis fails to take into account certain obvious socioeconomic factors. For example, unemployment in the Billings Area far exceeds that in Muskogee.

Factoring in the prevalent subsistence activities in the Navajo and Juneau Areas is quite difficult, but

probably relevant to a needs-based distribution. Muskogee’s unique history, in which Tribal governments

were largely inactive from 1906 until the mid-1970s, helps account for some part of the disparity. It

resulted in lower level of funding for tribal government, but it is difficult to say how much. In addition, the

broad enrollment criteria for Muskogee Area Tribes vastly expands the service population in the Area. It

raises the question should enrollment criteria play any role in the allocation of TPA funds? Finally, while

the Portland Area receives the largest amount of TPA funds overall, it falls towards the end of the range

of Human Services funds per person.

One way to redistribute TPA base human services funds is to provide every area with same amount of

funding -- $239.88 -- on a per-person basis:

REDISTRIBUTION OF TPA BASE HUMAN SERVICES FUNDS ON A PER-PERSON BASIS

1998 TPA Base Funds, 1997 Service Population

Area

Human Services

Funding

Service

Population

Redistribution

(Population X $239.88) Gain or (Loss)

Muskogee 21,157,061 346,368 83,086,755 61,929,694 

Navajo 39,857,512 234,786 56,320,465 16,462,953 

Anadarko 14,694,061 50,613 12,141,046 (2,553,015) 

Portland 34,403,881 129,888 31,157,533 (3,246,348) 

Aberdeen 38,599,398 140,949 33,810,846 (4,788,552) 

Minneapolis 26,332,216 89,487 21,466,141 (4,866,075) 

Albuquerque 21,989,024 62,669 15,033,039 (6,955,985) 

Eastern 19,979,230 50,196 12,041,016 (7,938,169) 

Sacramento 23,842,450 60,174 14,434,539 (9,407,911) 

Billings $19,519,665 41,961 10,065,604 (9,454,061) 

Phoenix 42,595,509 126,397 30,320,112 (12,275,397) 

Juneau 42,923,378 109,259 26,209,048 (16,714,330) 

TOTALS 346,081,197 1,442,747 346,081,197 0 
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 23

If the funds were redistributed on a per-person basis, two Areas -- Muskogee and Navajo -- would

receive substantial gains. The funding for the Muskogee Area would more than triple and the funding for

the Navajo Area would increase by two-thirds. Muskogee obviously benefits from its expansive Tribal

membership and resulting large service populations. Navajo, with only one Tribe to serve, also benefits

from a large service population without the inefficiencies inherent in multiple Tribe areas and agencies.

Note, however, the disturbing impacts of such a redistribution on Areas as Aberdeen and Juneau, where

unemployment and poverty are much more severe than in Muskogee. Similarly, in Sacramento and Juneau

with their many Tribes, funding on a per person basis will leave many, perhaps most, Tribes with so little

funding that Human Service programs would not exist, as a practical matter. Such a distribution

methodology also would conflict directly with existing Administration and Congressional policy towards

small Tribes. Clearly, redistribution of these funds based solely on service populations would result in such

disparities that it is not a superior distribution methodology to the current one.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL RESOURCE FUNDS

The following chart displays the allocation of TPA base funds for natural resources programs, by Area:

TPA NATURAL RESOURCES BY AREA*

Area Natural Resources Allocation Percent of Total

Portland 27,564,088 25.2%

Phoenix 11,555,486 10.6%

Juneau 10,551,906 9.7%

Aberdeen 9,716,602 8.9%

Albuquerque 8,428,550 7.7%

Navajo 8,394,845 7.7%

Billings 8,164,852 7.5%

Minneapolis 6,530,993 6.0%

Eastern 5,431,011 5.0%

Muskogee 4,977,723 4.6%

Sacramento 4,049,804 3.7%

Anadarko 3,832,904 3.5%

TOTALS 109,198,764 100%

*Includes Self Governance.

The following chart displays the Indian trust lands by Area:

INDIAN TRUST LANDS BY AREA

BIA Report of Indian Lands, 1996

Area Total Acres Percent of Total

Navajo 16325939 29.3%

Phoenix 12,726,432 22.8%

Billings 6,579,438 11.8%

Aberdeen 5,939,246 10.6%

Portland 4,864,234 8.7%
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 24

Albuquerque 4,664,574 8.4%

Minneapolis 1,495,660 2.7%

Juneau 1,056,562 1.9%

Muskogee 646,207 1.2%

Eastern 576,296 1.0%

INDIAN TRUST LANDS BY AREA (CONTINUED)

Area Total Acres Percent of Total

Sacramento 468,055 0.8%

Anadarko 457,694 0.8%

TOTALS 55,800,936 100.0%

The following chart displays the per-acre expenditure of TPA natural resources funds by Area:

TPA NATURAL RESOURCES FUNDS PER ACRE

FY 1998 TPA Base Funds, BIA Report of Indian Lands, 1996

Area Natural Resources Funding Trust Land Acres Funding per Acre

Juneau 10,551,906 1,056,562 9.99 

Eastern 5,431,011 576,296 9.42 

Sacramento 4,049,804 468,055 8.65 

Anadarko 3,832,904 457,694 8.37 

Muskogee 4,977,723 646,207 7.70 

Portland 27,564,088 4,864,234 5.67 

Minneapolis 6,530,993 1,495,660 4.37 

Albuquerque 8,428,550 4,664,574 1.81 

Aberdeen 9,716,602 5,939,246 1.64 

Billings 8,164,852 6,579,438 1.24 

Phoenix 11,555,486 12,726,432 .91 

Navajo 8,394,845 16,325,939 .51 

TOTALS 109,198,764 55,800,939 1.96 

On a nationwide basis, the Tribes and the BIA spend $1.96 per acre, of base TPA funds, to manage Indian

trust lands. Again, the disparities are at first striking, with the Juneau Area receiving nearly 20 time more

per acre than the Navajo Area.

One way to redistribute the existing TPA funds is to provide each of the 12 Areas with the same amount

of funding -- $1.96 -- for each acre of Indian trust land:

REDISTRIBUTION OF TPA NATURAL RESOURCES FUNDS

ON A PER-ACRE BASIS

1998 TPA Base Funds, BIA Report of Indian Lands, 1996

Area Natural Resources Funding Trust Land Acres ($1.96 per) Acre Gain or (Loss)

Navajo 8,394,845 16,325,939 31,998,840 23,603,995 

Phoenix 11,555,486 12,726,432 24,943,806 13,388,320 

Billings 8,164,852 6,579,438 12,895,698 4,730,846 

Aberdeen 9,716,602 5,939,246 11,640,922 1,924,320 

Albuquerque 8,428,550 4,664,574 9,142.565 714,015 

Anadarko 3,832,904 457,694 897,080 (2,935,824) 
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 25

Sacramento 4,049,804 468,055 917,388 (3,132,416) 

Minneapolis 6,530,993 1,495,660 2,931,494 (3,599,499) 

Muskogee 4,977,723 646,207 1,266,566 (3,711,157) 

Eastern 5,431,011 576,296 1,129,540 (4,301,471) 

Juneau 10,551,906 1,056,562 2,070,861 (8,481,045) 

Portland 27,564,088 4,864,234 9,533,899 (18,030,189) 

TOTALS 109,198,764 55,800,939 109,198,764 0 

If the TPA funds for natural resources programs were to be redistributed on a per acre basis, five Areas

would gain substantial amounts of funds:

! The funding for the Navajo Area would increase by 281 percent.

! The funding for the Phoenix Area would increase by 116 percent.

! The funding for the Billings Area would increase by 58 percent.

! The funding for the Aberdeen Area would increase by 20 percent.

! The funding for the Albuquerque Area would increase by 8 percent.

Seven Areas would lose funding if the natural resources funds were redistributed on a per-acre basis:

! The Juneau Area would lose 80 percent of its natural resources funding

! The Eastern Area would lose 79 percent 

! The Anadarko and Sacramento Areas would both lose 77 percent

! The Muskogee Area would lose 75 percent

! The Portland Area would lose 65 percent

! The Minneapolis Area would lose 55 percent.

The disruption of these changes is obvious. Moreover, such changes fail to consider obvious factors such

as the diversity of natural resources in the Muskogee, Portland, and Minneapolis Areas; the existing policy

directives concerning small Tribes; the relative homogeneity of lands in Navajo, Phoenix, Aberdeen, and

Billings; and the effects of the allotment policy in some areas and not others. Again, the simple approach

fails to distribute funds more equitably than the current system.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF TPA FUNDS TO THE TWELVE AREAS, AND TO SELFGOVERNANCE COMPACTS AS A “13TH” AREA

The TPA funding for Self-Governance compacts is made through the Office of Self-Governance. The

allocations of non-compact TPA base funds are provided through the 12 Area Offices. In the BIA Budget

Justifications to the Congress, the FY 1999 request for TPA base funds displays the allocations for SelfGovernance compacts separately from the allocations to the 12 Areas. Many policy-makers believe that

Self-Governance Tribes take a disproportionate amount of TPA funds. It is helpful, therefore, to analyze

the distribution of TPA funds is to treat the tribes that receive Self-Governance compacts as belonging to

a “13th” Area.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 26

The following chart displays the allocations of base TPA funds to the 12 Areas and to the Self-Governance

Compacts:
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 27

FY1998 TPA ALLOCATIONS TO "13"AREAS

(Based on FY 1998 Enacted)

Area Allocation Percent of Total

Self-Governance 100,342,567 20.8%

Phoenix 54,506,291 11.3%

Aberdeen 51,844,870 10.7%

Navajo 48,631,672 10.1%

Portland 45,272,368 9.4%

Albuquerque 31,992,351 6.6%

Billings 27,338,825 5.7%

Eastern 26,386,571 5.5%

Sacramento 24,107,087 5.0%

Juneau 23,657,703 4.9%

Minneapolis 21,387,321 4.4%

Anadarko 17,144,551 3.5%

Muskogee 10,959,941 2.3%

TOTALS 483,569,118 100.0%

ALLOCATING SELF-GOVERNANCE COMPACT FUNDS TO PROGRAM CATEGORIES

The distribution of TPA funds can be analyzed by comparing the human services funding on a per-person

basis, and by comparing the natural resources funding on a per acre basis. In order to include Self--

Governance compact funds in this analysis, the compact funds were allocated to the human services, natural

resources and general administration categories.

DISTRIBUTION OF HUMAN SERVICES FUND TO THE “13" AREAS

The first step in analyzing the distribution of TPA human services funds is to analyze the service populations

for the 12 Areas and for the Self-Governance compacts. The data for service population is taken from the

BIA Indian Service Population and Labor Force Estimates, 1997. 

The following table displays the service population for the 12 Areas, with the Self-Governance service

population listed as a separate “13th Area”:
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 28

BIA SERVICE POPULATION

1997 Service Population Report

Area Service Population Percent of Total

Self-Governance 515,095 35.7%

Navajo 234,786 16.3%

Aberdeen 140,949 9.8%

Phoenix 117,184 8.1%

Portland 76,212 5.3%

Juneau 65,573 4.5%

Albuquerque 60,237 4.2%

Eastern 50,196 3.5%

Minneapolis 40,987 2.8%

Billings 38,519 2.7%

Sacramento 38,517 2.7%

Muskogee 33,960 2.3%

Anadarko 30,532 2.1%

TOTALS 1,442,747 100%

The following chart displays the TPA base funding for human services programs to the 12 Areas and to

the Self-Governance compacts:

FY 1998 HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING

(Based on FY 1998 Enacted)

Area Allocation Percent of Total

Self-Governance 73,414,808 21.2%

Navajo 39,854,512 11.5%

Phoenix 39,605,789 11.4%

Aberdeen 38,599,398 11.2%

Albuquerque 21,315,093 6.2%

Portland 21,127,389 6.1%

Sacramento 20,743,977 6.0%

Eastern 19,979,230 5.8%

Juneau 18,440,779 5.3%

Billings 17,823,381 5.2%

Minneapolis 16,222,427 4.7%

Anadarko 12,353,477 3.6%

Muskogee 6,410,125 1.9%

TOTALS 346,081,197 100.0%

HUMAN SERVICES FUNDS ON A PER-PERSON BASIS

The following chart displays the TPA base human services funds for each Area, plus the Self-Governance

compacts, divided by the service population for the " 13 " Areas:
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 29

HUMAN SERVICE FUNDING PER PERSON

FY 1998 Enacted, 1997 Service Population

Area Human Service Funding Service Population Funding per Person

Sacramento 20,743,977 38,517 538.57 

Billings 17,823,381 38,519 462.72 

Anadarko 12,353,477 30,532 404.61 

Eastern 19,979,230 50,196 398.02 

Minneapolis 16,222,427 40,987 395.79 

Albuquerque 21,315,093 60,237 353.85 

Phoenix 39,605,789 117,184 337.98 

Juneau 18,440,779 65,573 281.23 

Portland 21,127,389 76,212 277.22 

Aberdeen 38,599,398 140,949 273.90 

Muskogee 6,410,125 33,960 188.76 

Navajo 39,854,512 234,786 169.75 

Self-Governance 73,414,808 515,095 142.53 

TOTALS 346,081,197 1,442,747 239.88 

The national average expenditure of TPA base human services funds is $239.88. Ten Areas receive more

than the national average, and three Areas receive less. Self-Governance Tribes receive about one-third

less than the national average, reflecting the participation of the large Muskogee Area Tribes in the SelfGovernance program.

The following chart displays the effects of redistributing the TPA base human services dollars based on an

average amount ($239.88) per person to all the “13" Areas”:

REDISTRIBUTION OF HUMAN SERVICES FUNDS ON A PER-PERSON BASIS

Area

Human Services

Funding

Service 

Population

Redistribution 

($239.88 per person) Gain or (Loss)

Self-Governance 73,414,808 515,095 123,560,980 50,146,172 

Navajo 39,854,512 234,786 56,320,465 16,465,953 

Muskogee 6,410,125 33,960 8,146,248 1,736,123 

Juneau 18,440,779 65,573 15,729,651 (2,711,128) 

Portland 21,127,389 76,212 18,281,734 (2,845,655) 

Aberdeen 38,599,398 140,949 33,810,846 (4,788,552) 

Anadarko 12,353,477 30,532 7,324,016 (5,029,461) 

Minneapolis 16,222,427 40,987 9,831,961 (6,390,466) 

Albuquerque 21,315,093 60,237 14,449,651 (6,865,442) 

Eastern 19,979,230 50,196 12,041,016 (7,938,214) 

Billings 17,823,381 38,519 9,239,938 (8,583,443) 

Sacramento 20,743,977 38,517 9,239,458 (11,045,519) 

Phoenix 39,605,789 117,184 28,110,097 (11,495,692) 

TOTALS 346,081,197 1,442,747 346,081,197 0 

If the funds were redistributed, three Areas -- Muskogee, Navajo, and the Self-Governance compacts –

would gain funds. Thus, one may not conclude that Self-Governance Tribes are systematically receiving
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 30

a disproportionate share of Human Services funding.

DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES FUNDS TO THE “13" AREAS

The first step in analyzing the distribution of TPA base funds for natural resource programs is to identify the

land bases for the "13" Areas.

The following chart displays the land bases for the 12 Areas, with the land bases for the Self-Governance

compacts broken out for each Area:

INDIAN TRUST LANDS BY AREA

BIA Report of Indian Lands, 1996

Area Total Acres Compact Tribes Other Tribes

Aberdeen 5,939,246 0 5,939,246 

Albuquerque 4,664,574 45,969 4,618,605 

Anadarko 457,694 57,353 400,341 

Billings 6,579,438 121,957 6,457,481 

Eastern 576,296 0 576,296 

Juneau 1,056,562 832,562 223,928 

Minneapolis 1,495,660 891,566 604,094 

Muskogee 646,207 446,376 199,831 

Navajo 16,325,936 0 16,325,936 

Phoenix 12,726,432 350,729 12,375,703 

Portland 4,864,234 500,773 4,363,461 

Sacramento 468,055 97,474 370,581 

TOTALS 55,800,334 3,344,831 52,455,503 

The following chart displays the land bases for the " 13 " Areas:

INDIAN TRUST LANDS BY AREA

BIA Report of Indian Lands, 1996

Area Acres Percent of Total

Navajo 16,325,936 29.3%

Phoenix 12,375,703 22.2%

Billings 6,457,481 11.6%

Aberdeen 5,939,246 10.6%

Albuquerque 4,618,605 8.3%

Portland 4,363,461 7.8%

Self-Governance 3,344,831 6.0%

Minneapolis 604,094 1.1%

Eastern 576,296 1.0%

Anadarko 400,341 0.7%

Sacramento 370,581 0.7%

Juneau 223,928 0.4%

Muskogee 199,831 0.4%

TOTALS 55,800,334 100.0%
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 31

The funding for Self-Governance compacts was allocated to the natural resources category, based upon

the percentage of non-compact TPA base funds spent in each Area for natural resource programs. The

following chart displays the allocation of TPA natural resources funds to the 13 Areas:

NATURAL RESOURCES FUNDING

(Based on FY 1998 Enacted)

Area Allocation Percent of Total

Portland 20,814,655 19.1%

Self-Governance 20,531,164 18.8%

Phoenix 11,136,281 10.2%

Aberdeen 9,716,602 8.9%

Navajo 8,394,845 7.7%

Albuquerque 8,303,802 7.6%

Billings 7,712,160 7.1%

Eastern 5,431,011 5.0%

Juneau 3,956,439 3.6%

Minneapolis 3,931,091 3.6%

Anadarko 3,570,482 3.3%

Muskogee 3,336,540 3.1%

Sacramento 2,363,689 2.2%

TOTALS 109,198,764 100.0%

The following chart displays the TPA base natural resources funding to each Area, divided by the total

acres in each Area, to give a per-acre measure of the distribution:

NATURAL RESOURCES FUNDING PER ACRE

FY 1999 Request, BIA Report of Indian Lands, 1996

Area Natural Resources Funding Acres Funding per Acre

Juneau 3,956,439 223,928 17.67 

Muskogee 3,336,540 199,831 16.70 

Eastern 5,431,011 576,296 9.42 

Anadarko 3,570,482 400,341 8.92 

Minneapolis 3,931,091 604,094 6.51 

Sacramento 2,363,689 370,581 6.38 

Self-Governance 20,531,164 3,344,831 6.14 

Portland 20,814,655 4,363,461 4.77 

Albuquerque 8,303,802 4,618,605 1.80 

Aberdeen 9,716,602 5,939,246 1.64 

Billings 7,712,160 6,457,481 1.19 

Phoenix 11,136,281 12,375,703 .90 

Navajo 8,394,845 16,325,936 .51 

TOTALS 109,198,764 55,800,334 1.96 

Thus, Juneau Area Tribes receive about 900 percent more per acre than the national average, and nearly

35 times as much as Navajo.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 32

REDISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES FUNDS

ON A PER-ACRE BASIS

Area

Natural Resources

Funding Acres

Redistribution

$1.96 per acre

Gain or (Loss)

Navajo 8,394,845 16,325,936 31,998,834 23,603,989 

Phoenix 11,136,281 12,375,703 24,158,377 13,022,096 

Billings 7,712,160 6,457,481 12,656,662 4,944,502 

Aberdeen 9,716,602 5,939,246 11,640,922 1,924,320 

Albuquerque 8,303,802 4,618,605 9,052,466 748,664 

Sacramento 2,363,689 370,581 726,339 (1,637,350) 

Minneapolis 3,931,091 604,094 1,184,024 (2,747,067) 

Anadarko 3,570,482 400,341 784,668 (2,785,814) 

Muskogee 3,336,540 199,831 391,689 (2,944,851) 

Juneau 3,956,439 223,928 438,899 (3,517,540) 

Eastern 5,431,011 576,296 1,129,540 (4,301,471) 

Portland 20,814,655 4,363,461 8,552,383 (12,262,272) 

Self-Governance 20,531,164 3,344,831 6,555,869 (13,975,295) 

TOTALS 109,198,764 55,800,334 109,198,764 0 

If the TPA funds for natural resources programs were to be redistributed on a per acre basis, five Areas

would gain funds:

! The funding for the Navajo Area would increase by 281 percent.

! The funding for the Phoenix Area would increase by 116 percent.

! The funding for the Billings Area would increase by 64 percent.

! The funding for the Aberdeen Area would increase by 20 percent.

! The funding for the Albuquerque Area would increase by 9 percent.

Seven areas and the Self-Governance Tribes would lose funding if the natural resources funds were

redistributed on a per-acre basis:

! The Juneau Area would lose 89 percent

! The Muskogee Area would lose 88 percent

! The Eastern Area would lose 79 percent 

! The Anadarko Area would lose 78 percent

! The Minneapolis Area would lose 70 percent

! The Sacramento Area would lose 69 percent

! The Self-Governance Tribes would lose 68 percent 

! The Portland Area would lose 59 percent.

Self-Governance Tribes do quite well in garnering shares of natural resources funds. However, this reflects

primarily the heavy participation in Self-Governance in the Muskogee and Portland Areas, where all Tribes,

not just Self-Governance, have been shown to receive a larger per-acre amount than Tribes in other Areas.

Further, the minimal participation in Self-Governance in Areas like Aberdeen, Billings, Navajo, and

Phoenix, where Tribes tend to have larger reservations, also skew the comparison to Self-Governance.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 33

Finally, even though Self-Governance Tribes do very well in the “dollars-per-acre” analysis, that is more

than offset by their poor position in the “dollars-per-person” analysis. Overall, therefore, the BIA

concludes that Self-Governance Tribes do not systematically receive a disproportionate amount of TPA

funds.

Reasons for Variation in Base Funding

In general, this study found that the distribution of TPA funds within each of the12 Areas was sound; Tribes

with larger populations and/or larger reservations receive proportionately larger shares of TPA funds, with

only a few exceptions. Distributions among the 12 Areas, however, varied widely. Several reasons exist

for these variations.

The allocation of BIA resources among the Areas and the Tribes is based on a complex set of historical,

geographical, demographic, political and programmatic factors. By itself, this statement may seem an

evasion and a defense of the indefensible. It is, however, a fact. As a result of the accretion of

responsibilities over 175 years, the allocation of BIA resources throughout the country is not and probably

never has been in accordance with a particular unified scheme. The allocation is rather the sum of many

individual decisions to achieve certain outcomes or satisfy particular goals for a Tribe at a point in time.

Today, “base funding” identifies the basic contract amount or amount of services on which a Tribe can rely

from one year to the next - the base amount from which budget increases or decreases are calculated. This

base funding amount is the result of years of legislation, appropriations, and BIA administration. The Tribes

were not always consulted, and no one realized that the particular decisions being made would ultimately

vest the Tribes with the right to particular shares of the BIA budget. 

BIA Agency Offices

A significant influence on the modern Tribal “base funding” has been the existence of a BIA Agency on a

reservation. Agencies were usually located on the larger reservations or on reservations deemed to require

close attention because of the historical importance of the Federal-Tribal relationship at a particular time.

With the agency as the focus, BIA resources at those reservations tended to grow over time. The original

funding that evolved into the TPA base was the operating funding to support BIA staff, expenses, and costs

for the agency and its services to the Tribe on that reservation. In contrast, where a Tribe was served by

a multi-Tribe agency, the share of resources attributable to that Tribe is likely to be less, and equally

important, almost impossible to identify due to the lack of data concerning how much time of each agency

staff member spends on issues attributable to one Tribe or another in that agency’s service area. The

decisions of where to locate agencies were made over a very long historical period, and were not entirely

based on assessments of relative need, population, or land area served by the Agency. 

When the Indian Self-Determination Act was implemented in the mid-1970's, Tribes served by a single

agency found it easier to identify Federal funds for contracting than Tribes served by multi-Tribe agencies.

It was perhaps inevitable that the negotiation of contract budgets in the cases of multi-Tribe agencies would

yield uneven results, leading to considerable variety in the subsequent TPA base funding for the various
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 34

Tribes. By and large, the dispositions of the Federal and Tribal negotiators played a large role in the

outcome, as did the question of whether the contract was one of the first in the Area, or one of the last,

after greater experience (and a diminishing supply of funds to support direct services) made contract

budgets more tight. Throughout the implementation of both Self-Determination and Self-Governance, the

BIA has lacked strict guidelines for negotiation of contract amounts, and the process tended to favor the

contracting or compacting Tribes over those who chose not to contract. 

Congressional Add-ons

Over the years, the Congress has earmarked funds to deal with specific local issues at the request of

individual Tribes or even state or local government officials. These funds have since become part of the

particular Tribes’ base funding. 

Programmatic Factors

At various times, especially in the past several decades, the Federal Government has emphasized the

development of certain natural resources and provided additional funding for those programs. Additional

funds were provided only to Tribes owning such resources, and those funds were made part of the Tribe’s

recurring TPA base funding. For example, the Portland Area received such funding for their extensive

forestry and fisheries management programs. In contrast, few such funds were provided to the Anadarko

Area, for example, which has only limited forestry and fisheries resources. In general, this phenomenon

was most beneficial to Tribes on reservations that were already rich with natural resources and agricultural

potential. Many of the larger Tribes, particularly in the Dakotas, received no additional funding.

On the other hand, several programs were removed from Tribal recurring bases during the 1980s. These

programs included the Housing Improvement Program (HIP) and the Road Maintenance program; many

Tribes had ranked these programs as top priorities and had allocated a substantial amount of their IPS

(Indian Priority System, the forerunner of TPA) funding for them. When these funds were removed from

the TPA, Tribes that had these programs listed as top priorities lost significant portions of their base funding.

Further, some Tribes received funding for a particular program through the TPA process, while other

Tribes received the same program funding from other sources within the BIA budget. For example, a Tribe

may have a stronger education program because its community college funding was received in TPA rather

than being separately funded through another BIA account. 

Tribes’ land bases also impact program delivery, as the cost of services that must be delivered correlate

with the size of a reservation. Obviously, delivery over a large land base creates more costs than does

delivery in a small area. Similarly, mineral programs or forestry programs are impacted by the size of the

areas mined or forested. Often, such factors have been built into the current budget processes.

Additionally, over several decades, some Tribes have purchased and/or acquired additional land in trust,

but have never received additional funding to manage these trust lands.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 35

At various times, the Federal Government has emphasized human services or education programs. At

those times, the BIA has requested additional funding for programs such as Adult Vocational Training,

Housing Improvement, or Social Services. Tribes with higher populations received a high proportion of

these funds, which were then made part of their recurring TPA base to meet ongoing needs. 

Demographic Factors

Increased Tribal enrollment, whether through changes in membership criteria or natural population growth,

has not been considered in distributing additional funds for TPA programs. Migration to and from

reservations, particularly as economic opportunities change, has not been accounted for in any calculations

of TPA funding.

Legal Obligations

As a result of treaties, court decisions, Executive policy decisions, and Congressional acts, the legal

obligations and funding for particular Tribes have resulted in unique recurring funding levels for those Tribes.

Additionally, these funds were incorporated into various Tribes’ bases to address the prospect of litigation

from these Tribes against the Federal Government for failure to support certain activities required by treaty,

statute, or the government’s trust responsibility. 

Newly Recognized (or Acknowledged) Tribes

Timing has been important in establishing a funding base for “new” Tribes. Tribes that were newly

recognized when there was funding available for that purpose tend to have more funds in their base than

Tribes who were recognized when there was little or no “New Tribes” funding. In the latter case, funding

for newly recognized Tribes was taken from funds already allocated to other Tribes in a multi-Tribe agency

or from other Tribes in an Area. When this occurred, every dollar to the new Tribe had to be taken from

an existing Tribe, tending to retard the development of the new Tribe’s base; the existing base for the “old”

Tribes was reduced not because of need-based factors, but merely to make room for another Tribe.

Further, the calculation of new Tribe funding requests has changed over time. At one point, a new Tribe

received funding based on estimated tribal enrollment and the Tribe’s land base. Currently, new Tribes of

less than 1,500 members receive $160,000. New Tribes of more than 1,500 members receive $320,000.

Small Tribes Distribution

Since 1994, there has been an effort to target additional resources to small Tribes. The Congress directed

the BIA to fully fund the small Tribes at $160,000 per year in FY 1998. The 1994 DOI/BIA/Tribal Task

Force Report on BIA Reorganization recommended that the minimum base funding for small Tribes in

Alaska be at least $200,000 due to the high costs in Alaska. This recommendation is consistent with other

Federal Government cost formulas currently in use, which provide for a 25 percent incremental adjustment
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 36

for high costs in Alaska. In the Juneau Area, 209 out of 226 Tribes received small Tribes funding, thereby

accounting for the largest portion of Tribal government funding in this area. 

Self-Determination and Self-Governance

As authorized under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Tribes have authority

to redesign programs, develop new programs, and reprioritize funding to meet local needs. As a result of

implementation of this Act, some Tribes use this authority to reprioritize funds from one program category

to another, which may result in variances among TPA bases. 

Self-Governance Tribes are widely believed to receive more relative funding than other Tribes. This

perception is largely due to the incentives and efforts to encourage Tribes to adopt Self-Governance during

the pilot period. The Self-Governance pilot and the 1994 Amendments to PL. 93-638 provided these

Tribes access to additional sources of BIA funding, such as Tribal shares of Central and Area Office

funding and shortfall funding, which is not available to non-Self-Governance Tribes. The Self-Governance

Tribes have been allowed to roll all their funding into the single program sub-element within TPA called

Self-Governance Compacts, and when general increases were provided by Congress, the Self-Governance

Tribes got larger shares of the increase because their bases were enhanced by Tribal shares and shortfall

funding. Conversely, when TPA suffered a general decrease in FY 1996, Self-Governance Tribes were

cut disproportionately due to their enhanced bases.

While there may have been advantages to early entry into Self-Governance, there is no evidence that there

are systematic and continuous financial advantages in favor of Self-Governance, except when general

increases are provided by the Congress. Self-Governance Tribes are allowed to include Non-Recurring

funds in their Self-Governance Annual Funding Agreements, and some Self-Governance Tribes have

funding from the non-base TPA programs (general assistance, housing improvement program, and road

maintenance) included in their TPA bases. This provides an advantage by enlarging a Self-Governance

Tribe’s share of a TPA general increase over another Tribe that receives the same funding but does not

have the funds in its base. 

When reviewing and comparing Tribal funding data between Self-Governance and other Tribes, it is

important to recognize certain differences in budget structure. Historically, the BIA attempts to show Tribal

budget requests based upon how Tribes intend to use funds. If a non-Self-Governance Tribe requests an

increase in Services to Children, Elderly and Families for the next fiscal year, the BIA reflects that request

specifically in its budget request. However a similar request for a Self-Governance Tribe is not displayed

in the BIA budget request. Worksheets supporting the request for Self-Governance Tribes reflect sources

of funding, including shortfall funding, Tribal shares, general increases, and non-TPA programs. They do

not, however, reflect how the funds are used and may not be compared readily with program elements for

non-Self-Governance Tribes.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 37

Chapter Summary

TThe wide variations among Indian Tribes and the lands on which they live present

significant impediments to development of one or more funding formulas.

TBased upon a range of socio-economic indicators, Indian people remain severely

disadvantaged compared to the U.S. population as a whole.

TFederal Indian policy places both a legal and a moral duty on the Bureau of Indian Affairs

to fulfill the Federal trust responsibilities.

TLegislative authorities lack specific programmatic goals and prohibit imposition of

standards and reporting requirements which would be required for any for Tribe-by-Tribe

comparison. 

TTPA base budgets are a result of history, geography, policies, politics, and timing.

TTribal governments, no less than any state or local government, deserve to have their

priorities respected.
11 U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

12U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl, 3.

13See e.g., Treaty with the Choctaws, Sept. 27, 1830, art. 5, 7 Stat. 333, 334. This was, indeed, a reflection of

the equal or near equal footing of the Tribes and the Federal Government at the time .

14 Cohen at 64-67. 

15 Id. at 66-67. Of course, the degree to which the Tribes' cessions were voluntary, fraudulent, or forced,

and the fairness of the consideration promised by the United States, varied as history advanced, with purposes for

the cessions moving from obtaining peace, to voluntarily obtaining land encircled by non-Indians, then to

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 38

CHAPTER 2

HISTORICAL AND LEGAL BASIS

FOR SERVICE TO TRIBES

Introduction

Major Federal Indian Policies

Fullfillment of Federal Responsibilities

Introduction

This chapter reviews the evolution of the relationship between the United States and the Indian Tribes and

places the modern TPA funding mechanisms in their historical and legal context. Treaties, Federal

legislation, executive actions, and judicial pronouncements have established and described the Federal

obligations to Indian people. In this chapter we examine the obligations to Indian Tribes which the United

States has assumed through these treaties, executive actions, and judicial pronouncements. From this

review, it is clear that Federal appropriations under the TPA budget system is the modern mechanism for

implementing many of the long-standing Federal obligations to Indian people.

The terms of the Constitution authorized the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make

treaties.11 It further granted the Congress the power “to regulate commerce with the Indian Tribes."12

Treaties ratified by the Senate were the primary instrument of relations with Tribes for almost 100 years.

The vast majority of the treaties contained several common themes: (1) recognizing the capacity of the

Tribes to make war and seeking peace in exchange for the protection of the United States as an ally;13 (2)

establishing borders or boundaries between the United States and Tribes, with the promise that such

boundaries would not be abridged; (3) setting the ground rules for trade relations between the Indians and

white settlers; (4) expressly recognizing the Tribes' continuing rights to hunt and fish on, and often off of,

retained Tribal lands; and, (5) establishing the criminal jurisdictional authority of the United States and the

Tribes.14 Within the treaties, the United States generally promised the delivery of goods, services, and cash

annuities as part of the consideration for the Tribes ceding vast territories of land.15 In addition to cash
effectuating forced relocation, then to reservation confinement, and then to attempts at forced assimilation. The

latter policies left the Tribes located in often isolated or destitute locales or surrounded by white settlement,

generally with no means of making their land productive or of providing for their members. 

16 E.g., Treaty with the Creeks, August 7, 1790, art. 3, 7 Stat 35 ("That the Creek nation may be led to a

greater degree of civilization, and to become herdsmen and cultivators...," the U.S. promised to give the Indians

livestock and implements). Similar, Treaty with the Cherokees, July 2, 1791, art. 14, 7 Stat. 39. See also, Treaty with

the Chippewa, Aug. 5, 1826, 7 Stat. 290 ("In consideration of the poverty of the Chippewas, and of the sterile nature

of the country they inhabit, unfit for cultivation, and always destitute of game, and as a proof of regard on the part of

the United States, it is agreed that an annuity of two thousand dollars, in money or goods, as the President may

direct, shall be paid to the Tribe ... .");

17 See the Creek and Cherokee treaties, preceding note, where the promises were not explicitly limited. The

Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794, art. 6, 7 Stat. 44, was explicitly unlimited: The promise to provide clothing, stock,

tools, etc., was to be implemented "yearly forever." See also Treaty with Poncas, 1825, 7 Stat. 247, art. II (the United

States agreed to "... extend such benefits and Acts of kindness as may be convenient and may seem just and proper

to the President ...").

18 The Congress terminated treaty making in 1871. Ch. 120 § 1, 16 Stat. 544, 566, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 71

(“Provided, that hereafter no Indian nation or Tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or

recognized as an independent nation, Tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty; Provided

further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty

heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or Tribe.”)

19 Interestingly, treaty making did not end, as some have suggested, because of the weakened status of the

Tribes at the time, but rather to equalize power between the two houses of the Congress in order to appease

members of the House of Representatives who resented the power exerted by the Senate in Indian Affairs due to its

constitutional responsibility to ratify treaties. Cohen, at 106-107.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 39

annuities, provisions were commonly made for basic necessities, for health and education services, and for

farming, stock raising, and other economic means to self-sufficiency.16 Some treaties fixed a specific time

limit for the provision of services, some did not.17

The Congress concluded the treaty-making era in 187118 and began to set Indian policy primarily through

legislation.19 Nevertheless, several basic principles established by the treaties remain in existence today:

(1) that Indian Tribes are distinct governments and that matters affecting Tribal self-government are

normally reserved to the Tribes, (2) that the Tribal/Federal relationship is bilateral in nature and founded

on Tribal consent and consultation; (3) that states have limited jurisdiction over Indian affairs in Indian

country, (4) that the United States has assumed broad responsibility to Tribes flowing from the

consideration promised in the several treaties and (5) that the loss of Tribal land and hunting grounds

caused Tribes to become dependent on the United States for their subsistence.

Major Federal Indian Policies

As noted above, the primary mechanism for dealing with the Tribes prior to 1871 was treaties negotiated

by the Executive Branch. The Congress, however, through the Commerce Clause, has plenary authority

over Indian affairs and the Congress has frequently exercised its plenary authority by shaping Indian policy
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 40

through legislative enactments. The Congress has enacted hundreds of statutes relating to Indian affairs

over the past 210 years. However, the policies these statutes were intended to implement fall into

essentially five groups: the removal policy, the assimilation policy, the policy of reorganization, the

termination policy, and the policy of Self-Determination. Some of these policies lasted for decades, some

for only a few years. Some overlapped with preceding and succeeding policies. Each, however, has left

a lasting mark on Indian people and each has associated with it certain Federal responsibilities that arose

as a result of implementation of those policies.

The Removal Policy (1800 - 1880's)

As the United States grew in the early years of the 19th Century, non-Indian settlers needed room in which

to settle. The Tribes owned and occupied vast expanses of land east of the Mississippi and their presence

was seen as an impediment to non-Indian expansion. As a result, many treaties required Tribes to

surrender lands in the east in exchange for new homelands further west. Later in the 19th Century, nonIndian expansion was occurring from the west coast eastward as well as from the east coast westward.

During this period the “Indian Territory” was created in what is now Oklahoma, and many Tribes were

removed from their homelands and moved there. Some Tribes were removed as the result of conquest,

and others were removed in response to executive orders creating reservations for them in areas far away

from their aboriginal territories. Many of these reservations were on land that was considered poor quality

by non-Indians and were selected because the settlers had no immediate use for those lands.

The removal policy created many unique problems and explains some of the land occupancy patterns that

persist to this day. For example, many Indians hid in the forests, deserts or swamps or fled from the newly

created reservations back to their homelands. This explains why there are Cherokees in North Carolina

and Oklahoma, why there are Seminoles in Florida and Oklahoma, and why there are Apaches in Arizona,

New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Many of the Tribes that were removed were stripped of the means of

livelihood provided by their original homelands and forced into inhospitable areas where their customary

means of supporting themselves did not exist. As a consequence, the Federal Government had to assume

the obligation to provide basic necessities to the Tribes and to improve the lands so the Tribes could once

again attempt to become self-supporting.

The Assimilation Policy (1887 - 1934)

As the great migration of non-Indians into Indian Country continued in the latter part of the 19th Century

and the Congress was pressured to make more land available for settlement, the Congress was faced with

several realities regarding the status of Tribes and their members: (1) the Tribes still occupied vast areas

that the United States wanted to settle with its citizens and to cross with railroads; (2) some Tribes were

still hostile and powerful enough to threaten the peace; and, (3) individual Indians whose Tribes had already

given up their territories, forcibly or otherwise, were often in desperate need of food, clothing, and other

living essentials. In order to deal with the Indian “problem,” the policy became to civilize the Indians and
20 Public sentiment was borne out in official policy: “[t]he American Indian is to become the Indian

American.” Commissioner Indian Affair. Ann. Rep., H.R. Exec. Doc. No. 1,50th Cong., 2d Sess. VI (1890)

21Allotment was not an entirely new idea. Some treaties provided for allotments on a limited basis. What

marked the difference with earlier allotment schemes and the GAA was the scale of the allotment effort.

22 As adult Indians struggled to adjust to their new life in a non-communal property setting, surrounded by

non-Indians and separated from their Tribal ways and traditions, their children were shipped off to denominational

mission and boarding schools where, for years at a time, they were forbidden from seeing their parents, speaking

their native language, wearing their native clothing and hair lengths, or practicing any form of cultural or traditional

ways. See e.g., Cohen, at 140-141. 

23 Cohen, at 141, 333.

24 Aside from the immediate impacts of the loss of land and weakening of Tribal governments in the 1800's,

the assimilation policy’s impacts are felt to this day through the problems associated with the fractionated title of the

remaining land base and the attendant difficulties in managing these fractionated land holdings. This modern fallout

from the assimilation policy has led to litigation such as the current Cobell v. Babbitt suit as well as necessitating

millions of dollars to be invested in trust asset management improvements.

25 Ch. 115, 42 Stat. 208, codified, as amended, at 25 U.S.C. § 13. There was, by no means, a complete end to

assimilationist policy with the passage of the Snyder Act however. For example, during the same year, engagement

in certain traditional and religious dances and ceremonies was made punishable by imprisonment. Cohen at 141. 

Shortly thereafter, in 1924, as a logical extension of assimilation, Indians were made citizens of the United States. 8

U.S.C. § 1401.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 41

to “assimilate” them into the surrounding non-Indian culture.20 The vehicle chosen to effect this change was

the General Allotment Act of 1887 (GAA). 25 U.S.C. § 331 et seq.

The GAA sought to achieve assimilation by dividing the Tribal land bases into parcels of land and “allotting”

them to individual Tribal members.21 In order to protect these new land owners until they learned the ways

of the white man, the Congress provided that these allotments should be held in trust by the United States

for the individual Indian owners for 25 years. At the expiration of the trust period, title was to be conveyed

in fee simple to the assimilated Indian owners. In addition to assimilating individual Indians, the Assimilation

Policy’s other intended effect was to weaken and ultimately destroy Tribal government. Thus, the

legislation and government policies encouraging assimilation supported harsh educational measures aimed

at destroying native languages and Tribal traditions22 and criminalized cultural and religious activities.23

The impacts of the GAA were devastating. From 1887 to 1934, the Indian land base shrank from 138

million acres to 48 million acres. Rather than being assimilated, many Indians simply lost their land and

much of their culture. Tribal governments remained intact, but were severely weakened.24 As the

devastation of the assimilation policy on the lives and communities of Indian people began to slowly emerge

into public view, the Congress reassessed the policy and began to change the direction of Federal Indian

policy. This first became evident with the passage of the Snyder Act in 1921 which, though in some

respects echoing prior policy,25 recognized the need for a more effective funding authorization mechanism

for the United States to satisfy the tremendous need to provide for basic Indian daily living requirements—a
26 The Snyder Act requires that the BIA, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, "direct,

supervise, and expend such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate, for the benefit, care, and

assistance of the Indians throughout the United States" for several purposes, including education, health, economic

development and profitability of Indian property; development and maintenance of Indian water supplies and

buildings; the hiring of government officials, physicians, Indian police, Indian judges; and the suppression of drug

and alcohol trafficking.

27 Institute for Government Research, The Problem of Indian Administration (L. Meriam ed.) (Baltimore: The

Johns Hopkins Press, 1928).

28Cohen, at 144.

29 Because of the fractionation of individual Indian owned lands and because of a lack of financial

resources by the Tribes, much Indian land was leased to non-Indians.

30 Id. At 144-145

31 Id. at 146-147; Clinton, Price & Newton, American Indian Law, at 152-153 (3d ed., Michie, 1991).

32 Ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984, codified, as amended, at 25 U.S.C. § 461 et. seq. Many of the provisions of the IRA

excepted Tribes in Oklahoma from their application, but two years later the Congress passed the Oklahoma Indian

Welfare Act which authorized similar treatment of Tribes therein. Ch. 831, 49 Stat. 1967, codified, as amended, at 25

U.S.C. §§ 501-509.

33 Cohen, at 147.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 42

need that was the direct result of land cessions and the assimilation policy.26

The Reorganization Policy (1934 – 1953)

Awareness of the failure of assimilation spread with the issuance in 1928 of the famous Meriam Report,

a private two-year study of the BIA which examined Indian policy and its effects.27 In addition to

underscoring the ineffectiveness of past policy, particularly the loss of Indian land holdings,28 the report

criticized the paternalism of Indian administration, pressed for economic development in Indian country,

encouraged Indian use of Indian lands,29 urged support of community life, and advocated for an increase

in the standard of Indian health.30

In 1933, President Roosevelt appointed John Collier as Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Collier's view of

the future of Indian policy was to reverse the paternalism that had so dominated Indian policy since the end

of the treaty-making period.31 He also sought to reinvigorate Tribal governments, allow the Tribes to take

control of their own destiny, and to foster Tribal self-sufficiency. The main vehicle through which Collier

sought to encourage such economic development and revitalization of Indians and their Tribes was the

Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (hereinafter IRA),32 which aimed at providing "a mechanism for the

Tribe as a governmental unit to interact with and adapt to a modern society, rather than to force the

assimilation of individual Indians."33 Thus, among other things, the IRA (1) prohibited the further allotment

of Tribal land, (2) extended the periods of trust restrictions on existing allotted lands, (3) authorized the

Secretary to obtain by purchase or gift additional lands to build Tribal land bases, declare new reservations,
34Many of the provisions of the IRA have been extended to all Tribes. For example the corporate charter

provisions of the IRA, 25 U.S.C. § 477, have been amended to allow all Tribes to incorporate, and the land

acquisition authority of the IRA, 25 U.S.C. § 465, was extended to all Tribes by section 203 of the Indian Land

Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2202.

35 See generally, Clinton at 158; Cohen at 159, 170-175.

36 Over the next few years the Congress withdrew Federal support for (i.e. "terminated") over 100 Tribes

and bands, including two major ones (the Menominee and Klamath Tribes), adversely affecting over 11,000 Tribal

members and over 1.3 million acres of reservation land. Clinton, supra.

3718 U.S.C. § 1162 (criminal laws) and 28 U.S.C. § 1360 (civil laws). Public Law 280 was amended in 1968 to

require Tribal consent to any further state jurisdiction. 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321 and 1322.

38 E.g., Menominee Restoration Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-197, 87 Stat. 770, codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 903-903f;

Oklahoma Indians Restoration Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-281, 92 Stat. 246, 25 U.S.C. §§ 861-861c. In 1988 Congress

revoked the unilateral termination policy as part of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2502(f).

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 43

and make additions to existing reservations, (4) directed the Secretary to promulgate regulations for

"sustained-yield" management of Indian forest resources and to restrict livestock grazing to the estimated

range carrying capacity, (5) authorized grants and a revolving loan fund for development of Indian

businesses and corporations, (6) provided educational grants and Indian preference in employment in the

Indian service, and (7) authorized Indian communities to approve constitutions and bylaws in order to

organize for their respective welfare, as well as to incorporate under Federal charters to engage in business

ventures.34

The Termination Policy (1953 - 1960)

Assimilationist sentiment flared up again after World War II, this time embodied in the view that the United

States should rid itself of all responsibility for Tribes.35 On August 1, 1953, House Concurrent Resolution

108 declared the "sense of Congress" that a number of the more self-sufficient Tribes "at the earliest

possible time ... be freed from all Federal supervision and control and from all disabilities and limitations

specially applicable to Indians."36 This was followed by Public Law 280, unilaterally extending State

jurisdiction to a number of Indian reservations in five states.37 Rather than the more self-sufficient Tribes

being terminated, in many cases the smaller, poorer, least prepared Tribes were terminated. Again, the

impacts of the termination policy on many of the terminated Tribes was similar to the impacts of the

assimilation policy–loss of land, and dissipation of Tribal funds that were removed from Federal trust

accounts. Fortunately, public sentiment and politics soon shifted away from termination and back to the

recognition that a Federal responsibility exists to protect and support Tribes until the Tribes themselves are

prepared to end the relationship. Most of the terminated Tribes have since been restored by the Congress

or the courts,38 although many are still struggling to reacquire a land base and recover from the financial

losses caused by the termination policy.

The Policy of Tribal Self-Determination (1960 to Present)

In 1961, the Public Housing Administration concluded that Indian Tribes had the authority to organize
39

 Richard Schifter, Trends in Federal Indian Administration, 5 S. Dak L. Rev. 1 (1969)

40 Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs, Pub. Papers 564 (Richard M. Nixon), 6 Pres. Doc. 894

(1970). The Nixon speech echoed some sentiments of the two previous Chief Executives. Specifically, President

Kennedy committed to upholding treaty obligations, protecting the Tribal land base, and promoting economic

development; President Johnson stated in a special message to the Congress that the new goal for Indian affairs

should be to end the debate on termination, and eradicate paternalism, while stressing self-determination. See

Cohen, at 182-185. See also supportive statements of other Presidents. President Carter said, "I consider it my

solemn duty and obligation as President to see that we fulfill our trusteeship responsibilities within the framework of

self-determination for American Indians." Message of August 30, 1978, to the National Congress of American

Indians. President Reagan said, "The Constitution, treaties, laws, and court decisions have consistently recognized

a unique political relationship between Indian Tribes and the United States which this administration pledges to

uphold." 19 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 98 (Jan. 24, 1983). President Clinton said, "today I

re-affirm our commitment to self-determination for tribal governments. Today I pledge to fulfill the trust obligations

of the Federal government. Today I vow to honor and respect tribal sovereignty based upon our unique historical

relationship." 30 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 941 (April 29, 1994) (emphasis added).

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 44

Tribal housing authorities on reservation and, for the first time, the program of the Housing Act of 1937,

a general Federal housing program, became available in Indian and Alaska Native communities. In 1962

Tribes were made eligible for grants under the Public Works Acceleration Act, another general Federal

program. Finally in 1964 the Economic Opportunity Act, the centerpiece of President Johnson's War on

Poverty, provided for grants from the Office of Economic Opportunity directly to Tribes for community

action programs and for Tribal participation in the Neighborhood Youth Corps administered by the

Department of Labor. The groundwork for what was to become the era of Indian Tribal

Self-Determination was, thus, laid in the 1960s.39

In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon delivered a special message to the Congress on Indian affairs which

called for a break from the extremes in Indian policy of termination and paternalism, and the creation of "a

new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions."40 Nixon recounted

that "centuries of injustice ... [in which] the AmericanIndians have been oppressed and brutalized, deprived

of their ancestral lands and denied the opportunity to control their own destiny" had placed them at the

bottom of nearly every social measure. He rejected termination of the Federal responsibility to the Tribes,

pointing out that the responsibility was not simply an act of generosity to be withdrawn on a unilateral basis

whenever seen fit:

The special relationship between Indians and the Federal government is the result instead

of solemn obligations which have been entered into by the United States Government.

Down through the years, through written treaties and through formal and informal

agreements, our government has made specific commitments to the Indian people. For

their part, the Indians have often surrendered claims to vast tracts of land and have

accepted life on government reservations. In exchange, the government has agreed to

provide community services such as health, education and public safety, services which

would presumably allow Indian communities to enjoy a standard of living comparable to

that of other Americans.
41 Id.

42

 Public Law 93-638, 88 Stat. 2203, codified, as amended, at 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. 

43 25 U.S.C. § 450(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(2).

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 45

In addition to recognizing the "immense moral and legal force" of the agreements underlying the "special

relationship between Indian Tribes and the Federal government," President Nixon recognized two other

bases for rejection of termination. First, the practical effects of "removal of the Federal trusteeship

responsibility" had been to leave the affected Indians in worse economic and social conditions than before.

Second, the fear of termination that hung over every Tribe created a climate of apprehension in which:

Any step that might result in greater social, economic or political autonomy is regarded with

suspicion by many Indians who fear that it will only bring them closer to the day when the

Federal government will disavow its responsibility and cut them adrift.

* * *

This, then, must be the goal of any new national policy toward the Indian people: to

strengthen the Indian's sense of autonomy without threatening his sense of community. We

must assure the Indian that he can assume control of his own life without being separated

involuntarily from the tribal group. And we must make it clear that Indians can become

independent of Federal control without being cut off from Federal concern and Federal

support.

To effectuate this goal, President Nixon proposed several recommendations including, among others, the

repeal of House Concurrent Resolution 108 of 1953 and reaffirmation by the Congress that the unique

historical relationship between the Federal Government and Tribes shall not be abridged without the

consent of the Tribes.41 The President also proposed the enactment of self-determination legislation to

authorize Tribes to contract to administer Federal programs on their own behalf and be adequately funded

to provide such programs; increasing local Indian control of Indian education; passage of economic

development legislation for the development of infrastructure and planning; additional funding for Indian

health services and Indian education in health careers; and "the elevation of Indian affairs to their proper

role within the Department of the Interior" through establishment of the position of Assistant Secretary for

Indian Affairs. 

The culmination of the President’s initiatives was passage of the Indian Self-Determination and Education

Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA).42 In that Act, the Congress found that, "after careful review of the

Federal Government's historical and special legal relationship with, and resulting responsibilities to,

American Indian people", Federal domination of Indian services had retarded the progress of Indians and

Tribes by denying them the opportunity to develop the leadership skills of self-government or have an

effective voice in the planning and implementation of Indian programs. The Congress additionally found

that "the Indian people will never surrender their desire to control their relationships both among themselves

and with non-Indian governments, organizations, and persons." Finally, the Congress acknowledged that

it had failed to satisfy "the Federal responsibility for and assistance to education of Indian children."43
44 25 U.S.C. § 450a(a) and (c).

45 25 U.S.C. § 450a(b).

46 25 U.S.C. § 450f(a)(1).

47 25 U.S.C. § 450j-1(a).

48

 25 U.S.C. §§ 450l(c)(a)(2) and (c)(d)(1)(B) (noting also that the "Secretary shall act in good faith in

upholding such trust responsibility.")

49 Public Law 100-472, Title II, § 209, Oct. 5, 1988, 102 Stat. 2296, as amended (see 25 U.S.C. § 450f (note));

Public Law 103-413, Title II, § 204, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4272), codified at 25 U.S.C. § 458aa, et seq.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 46

The Congress recognized the "obligation of the United States" to assure maximum Indian participation in

the provision of Federal services to Tribal communities so as to render such services more responsive to

Tribal needs and desires. The Congress has also declared a "major national goal of the United States" to

be to provide the educational opportunities to Indian children that will permit them to compete and excel

in a manner essential to their social and economic well-being.44 Importantly, under the ISDEAA:

The Congress declares its commitment to the maintenance of the Federal Government's

unique and continuing relationship with, and responsibility to, individual Indian Tribes and

to the Indian people as a whole through the establishment of meaningful Indian

self-determination policy which will permit an orderly transition from the Federal

domination of programs for, and services to, Indians to effective and meaningful

participation by the Indian people in the planning, conduct, and administration of those

programs and services. In accordance with this policy, the United States is committed to

supporting and assisting Indian Tribes in the development of strong and stable tribal

governments, capable of administering quality programs and developing the economies of

their respective communities.45

Accordingly, the ISDEAA directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human

Services to enter into self-determination contracts with Tribal organizations, upon the Tribes’ request, to

assume the responsibility to run Indian programs.46 Contractible programs specifically include, among

others, programs authorized by the Johnson-O'Malley Act and the Snyder Act. In carrying out such a

contract, the amount of funding provided to a Tribe "shall not be less than the appropriate Secretary would

have otherwise provided."47 Finally, the ISDEAA provides that nothing in the contract "may be construed

to terminate, waive, modify, or reduce the trust responsibility of the United States to the Tribe(s) or

individual Indians."48

The success of Tribes and Tribal organizations administering Federal programs for their benefit led the

Congress to amend the ISDEAA to make permanent two self-governance demonstration programs

administered by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.49 The

amending legislation (ISDEAA Title IV) is based upon the Congress' findings that:
50 25 U.S.C. § 458aa(note)

51 25 U.S.C. §450aa (note)

52 Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 25 U.S.C. Sect. 1601, et seq.

53 Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, 25 U.S.C. Sect. 2801, et seq.; Indian Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C.

Sect. 3601, et seq.

54 ISDEAA; see also Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988, as amended, 25 U.S.C. Sect 2501, et seq.;

Higher Education Tribal Grant Authorization Act, 25 U.S.C. Sect. 3301, et seq.

55

 Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, 25 U.S.C. Sect. 410, et seq.

56

 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. sect. 2701, et seq.

57

 Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. Sect 1901, et seq.; Indian Child Protection and Family Violence

Prevention Act, 25 U.S.C. Sect. 3201, et seq.; Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 47

(1) the tribal right of self-government flows from the inherent sovereignty of Indian Tribes

and nations;

(2) the United States recognizes a special government-to-government relationship with

Indian Tribes, including the right of the Tribes to self-governance, as reflected in the

Constitution, treaties, Federal statutes, and the course of dealings of the United States with

Indian Tribes.50

Thus, the Congress' declaration of policy with regard to the permanent establishment of self-governance

includes the maintenance and improvement of "its unique and continuing relationship with, and responsibility

to, Indian Tribes," and further, "to ensure the continuation of the trust responsibility of the United States to

Indian Tribes and individual Indians."51

In sum, through the ISDEAA legislation, the Congress has expressly acknowledged its obligation to carry

out its unique responsibilities to Tribes and their members by supporting the development of those Tribes,

their leadership, and Tribal economies; by enhancing Indian education; and by involving the Tribes and their

members in the administration of Federal services. The Congress has met its obligation in part, through the

Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) process.

Fulfillment of Federal Responsibilities to Tribes Through the TPA Process

The Federal Government’s commitment to maintaining its obligations to Tribes and Indian people is

expressed not only through the ISDEAA, but through laws that govern distinct aspects of the United States’

responsibilities to the Tribes. The Congress has, in fact, acknowledged and further defined its

responsibilities in virtually every area of Indian policy, including health,52 law enforcement and criminal

justice,53 education,54 housing,55 economic development,56 human services,57 natural resources,58 and
1986, as amended, 25 U.S.C. Sect. 2401, et seq. 

58

 American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act, 25 U.S.C. Sect 3701, et seq.; National Indian

Forest Resource Management Act, 25 U.S.C. Sect. 3101, et seq.

59

 Native American Languages Act, 25 U.S.C. Sect. 29901, et seq.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 48

cultural preservation.59

TPA comprises nearly half of the BIA’s operating budget and is the principal source of funding for Tribal

government operations and the provision of services to Tribal members. Consistent with its commitment

to maintain the government-to-government relationship with Tribes, the Congress has authorized Tribes to

prioritize funding among the various TPA programs according to their unique needs and circumstances.

Thus, Tribes prioritize funding among eight general TPA subactivities: (1) Tribal government; (2) human

services; (3) education; (4) public safety and justice; (5) community development; (6) resources

management; (7) trust services; and (8) general administration. Each subactivity, in turn, encompasses

several programs. These various TPA programs are authorized by, and in many instances derive directly

from, legislation which, by express terms, is aimed at carrying out the Federal government’s responsibilities

and obligations to Tribes and individual Indians. A brief description of many of these programs and a

partial listing of supporting legislation are included in Chapter One.

While the BIA and the Indian Health Service provide most of the Federal support to Indian Tribes, there

are many other Federal programs available to Tribal governments. A review of the 1998 Catalog of

Federal Domestic Assistance, produced an 18-page list of programs that specifically identify Tribal

governments as eligible applicants. However, unlike the TPA programs, which provide a recurring funding

base to Tribal governments, most of the other agencies’ programs provide project grants, loans, or

technical assistance. While BIA does not have information to indicate how Tribes fare when Federal grants

are awarded on a competitive basis by other departments, BIA assumes that a number of Tribes would be

at a disadvantage, because they generally lack full-time, professional staff dedicated to writing strong grant

proposals. Nonetheless, these programs are available and have seen increased outreach efforts by a

number of Federal agencies, which leads BIA to believe that Tribal participation in these other programs

will show steady increases.

BIA has also compiled another list of Federal programs. The second list includes programs that identify

state and/or local governments as eligible applicants, but appear to exclude Tribal governments. The BIA

is somewhat chagrined to note that about a dozen of these programs are within the Department of the

Interior. While BIA will work internally to see if the eligibility status can be extended to Tribal

governments, it would be most helpful if the Congress could prevail upon the authorizing committees for

these other departments to see if it might further open these programs to Tribes. Copies of both lists of

programs are included as Appendix 2.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 49

Chapter Summary

TTPA programs are founded on and result from a complex and lengthy statutory and

historical bases.

TTPA is the embodiment of the policy of Self-Determination and is intended to implement

the unique obligations of the United States arising from its relationship with the indigenous

Indian Tribes. 

TCongress has on occasion experimented with policies that were intended to materially

(and unilaterally) alter the Federal/Tribal relationship.

TCongress has consistently returned to the concept of dealing with the Tribes as

governments and has consistently reaffirmed its obligations to the Tribes.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 50

CHAPTER 3

MEASURES OF TRIBAL NEED

Process Used to Estimate Tribal Needs

Data Collected from 18 Tribes

Eight Northern Pueblos

In proposing alternative methods to distribute funds, the Congress instructed the BIA to consider the

“relative needs of Tribes and tribal members.” In order to make a meaningful determination of need, the

following conditions would have to exist:

Each TPA program would have quantifiable goals or objectives;

Each program would have one or more standards allowing for Tribe-by-Tribe comparisons;

TPA funds would be used only for activities directly supporting the stated goals; and

Standard reports would be prepared by Tribes to compare program performance and to ascertain

when the program goals and objectives have been achieved.

If one assumes that funds provided to Tribal governments through the BIA should be sufficient to allow

Tribal governments to provide their members many of the services comparable to those services provided

by local governments throughout the nation, Tribal governments are receiving from the BIA only about half

of the needed amount. Of course, some Tribes do have substantial resources outside of those amounts

provided by the BIA, including those from IHS and other Federal agencies, as well as income from Tribal

enterprises. These sources are discussed in Chapter Four, Measures of Tribal Revenues.

In the effort to address Tribal needs, a subcommittee was formed from the TPA Workgroup to attempt

to quantify a level of need for the programs and functions and activities that are supported with TPA funds

and compare that need to the amount of funding being received by Tribes in their TPA allocations and other

sources of income. As indicated in the following tables, BIA funding for Tribal programs falls dramatically

short of Tribal needs. The workgroup attempted to quantify these programmatic shortfalls to the extent

possible and then show how certain Tribes use their own resources to supplement their TPA funding to

address the shortfall. Even with the Tribal contributions to these programs, substantial unmet needs remain.

The task was to try to quantify a reasonable and objective measure of need for each program, functions,

and activity that is supported with TPA funds, and determine what portion of that need was in fact being

met with the current TPA funding levels. From this, it is hoped that a measuring instrument would be

developed that would allow for a Tribe-by-Tribe comparison of the level of need being funded through the
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 51

TPA process, and funding levels of Tribes against non-Indian programs.

The BIA chose a sample of Tribes for detailed analysis. The Tribes varied in population and amount of

Tribal trust acres and individual allotted trust lands. Eighteen Tribes provided information. The first step

was to attempt to identify functions and activities that other governments (Federal, state, local) provide that

are the same as, or similar to, the functions and activities Tribal governments provide with TPA funding.

After a comparable function was identified, a unit cost for the provision of that service was determined.

Using the total TPA funding amount for each service, the average unit cost that Tribes are receiving was

compared to the amount being expended in the non-Indian community. A simple calculation was then

made to show the amount of funding adjustment needed to bring Tribes to a comparable spending level for

a particular function: 

AMOUNT SPENT PER UNIT BY OTHER GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS – AMOUNT SPENT PER UNIT BY

TPA = UNMET NEED

While the format safely appeared to be viable, it was difficult to determine if such a definition of need could

be used as a measuring device at the local level. In some instances, due to the uniqueness of the specific

program or function, it was very difficult to find a comparable standard in the non-Indian community. The

Tribes from each area were then asked to voluntarily provide Tribal specific data to test the concept. In

addition to the TPA funds being spent in providing the identified services, the Tribes were also asked to

indicate the amount of Tribal funds that were being used to support that service. No distinction was made

as to the source of the Tribal revenues. Because this is a very small sample of Tribes, the methodology

does not provide a definitive conclusion and extrapolations cannot be made from this information, but there

are some indicators and trends that clearly indicate a more in-depth analysis needs to be prepared involving

a larger number of Tribes. 

The following tables reflect the information that was collected. Table 1 provides an aggregate of all Tribes.

It also reflects the amount of FY 1998 TPA funding, the unmet need on a national aggregate basis, and the

amount of Tribal revenue funds that Tribes use to supplement specific programs. As can be seen, even with

Tribes supplementing the programs with their Tribal revenues, there is still a substantial unmet need.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 52

Table 1 • National Unmet Tribal Needs

Summary

Tribal Government

Program FY 1998 TPA Enacted Unmet Need

Other Aid to Tribal Government 22,209,000 130,589,810

Subtotal $22,209,000 $130,589,810

Human Services

Services to Children, Elderly and Families 28,063,000 13,140,000

Indian Child Welfare Act 14,235,000 21,500,000

Subtotal $42,298,000 $34,640,000

Education

Johnson O’Malley 18,534,000 11,968,000

Higher Education Scholarship 29,495,000 101,050,000

Adult Education 2,663,000 1,340,000

Subtotal $50,692,000 $114,358,000

Public Safety and Justice

Tribal Courts 11,846,000 17,317,228

Subtotal $11,846,000 $17,317,228

Community Development

Adult Vocational Training and Direct Employment 10,859,000 4,407,102

Economic Development/Loan Guarantee 3,666,000 4,064,422

Subtotal $14,525,000 $8,471,524

Resource Management

Agriculture Range 19,682,000 6,950,000

Forestry 20,762,000 292,193,940

Water Resources 3,784,000 19,087,941

Wildlife and Parks 4,998,000 36,500,000

Minerals and Mining 2,078,000 1,471,000

Subtotal $51,304,000 $356,202,881

Trust Services

Realty/Appraisals 21,875,000 26,630,704 

ANILCA 1,506,000 0

ANCSA Historical & Cemetery Sites 606,000 0

Subtotal $23,987,000 $26,630,704

TOTAL $216,861,000 $688,210,147

*32% of Unmet Need is Funded
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 53

Table 2 reflects the information as outlined above, but for the 4 programs that are not distributed in the

Tribes’s base, but rather by formula

Table 2 • Preliminary Comparisons of Tribal Needs Non-Base Funding Summary

Tribal Government

Program FY 1998 TPA Enacted Preliminary Indicator of Need

Contract Support Funding (CSF) 105,829,000 25,894,697 (20%)

Subtotal $105,829,000 $25,894,697

Human Services

Welfare Assistance 93,960,000 0

Housing Improvement Program (HIP) 16,030,000 418,708,175

Subtotal $109,990,000 $418,708,175

Community Development 

Road Maintenance 25,456,000 74,619,000

TOTAL FY98 TPA Enacted

$241,275,000

Preliminary Indicator of

Need $519,221,872

Table 3 and 4 reflect a sample of Human Services and Public Safety and Justice program activities in TPA,

the complete detailed information for the national aggregate is included in Appendix 3. This table identifies

what comparable agency or program was used, the per unit TPA funding amount, the comparable funding

amount and the total unmet need. A narrative is attached to the corresponding program that describes the

program activity, elaborates on the comparable standard, and identifies any shortfalls in the identified

comparable. If a program activity has a specific methodology for distribution to less than all Tribes, the

program is footnoted with an explanation.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 54

HUMAN SERVICES

Table 3

Human Services

Services to

Children,

Elderly and

Families

$28,063,000

Indian Child

Welfare Act

$14,235,000

Welfare

Assistance

Housing

Improvement

Program

State

Temporary

Assistance to

Needy

Families

(TANF)

Child

Welfare

League of

America

See NonBase TPA

Funding

Table

See NonBase TPA

Funding

Table

Caseload per staff

GA for service only

cases requiring substantial casework

or client counseling

at least once per

month

GA or service only,

etc, moderate casework every two

months

GA, etc. minimum

casework every six

months

Caseload per staff

Under age 5 no

more than 20

active cases per

caseworker.

Over age 5, no

more than 15

cases.

No more than 30

adoptive families

per caseworker

Under age 5

30:1 118 BIA

caseworkers x $30,000

avg salary/ benefits =

$3,540,000 (Based on

3,540 case)

50:1 160 wkrs x $30K =

$4,800,000 (based on a

caseload of 8,000) 

100:1 160 wkrs x $30K =

$4,800,000 (based on a

caseload of 8,000)

60:1=50 case workers x

$43,000 avg. Sal./Bene. =

$2,150,000 (based on a

caseload of 3,000)

60:1=50 wkrs x $43K =

$2,150,000

60:1=150 wkrs x $43K =

$6,450,000

15:1 236 wkrs x

$30,000 = $7,080,000

(Based on 3,540 case)

25:1 320 wkrs x $30K=

$9,600,000 (based on a

caseload of 8,000)

50:1 320 wkrs x $30K=

$9,600,000 (based on a

caseload of 8,000)

20:1= 150 wkrs x $43K

avg Sal/Bene.=

$6,450,000 (based on a

caseload of 3,000)

20:1=150 wkrs x $43K

= $4,450,000

30:1=450 wkrs x $43K

= $19,350,000

118 wkrs x

$30,000 = 

160 wkrs x

$30K

160 wkrs x

$30K

100 wkrs x

$43K

100 wkrs x

$43K

300 wkrs x

$43K

$3,540,000

$4,800,000

$4,800,000

$4,300,000

$4,300,000

$12,900,000

Indian Child Welfare Act

This program provides the resources to protect Indian children and prevent the separation of Indian

families, as authorized under Public Law 95-606, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). BIA

and Tribal social services programs are mandated to respond to all reports of child abuse and neglect in

Indian Country. In 1998, there were more than 27,000 referrals to the more than 500 BIA and Tribal

programs for child abuse and neglect investigations. More than 40 percent of the referrals involved some

form of substance abuse. 

Standard/Problem
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 55

The number of Indian children at risk is almost three times greater in Indian communities than in the general

population. Caseloads and caseworkers were used for illustration purposes and clerical, supervisory staff

and other administrative costs were not included in the calculations. The BIA baseline data is an average

caseload of ICWA cases as compared to the same caseload of high risk child welfare cases in a state

program. The BIA’s average was used to project nationwide totals for comparison. Adoption cases

involve complex research and interaction to complete permanency planning and final placement of children.

It is not unusual for adoptions and related cases, in which other alternatives are explored and selected over

adoptions, to consume substantial effort by caseworkers. The baseline reflects an attempt to accurately

measure this work in quantifiable terms. 

Services to Children, Elderly and Families

The goal of this program is to ensure that individual Indians who need assistance receive aid for basic

essential needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and other services that improve the conditions of Tribal

members. These funds support approximately 950 BIA and Tribal social services and other human

services staff. They coordinate cooperative work efforts and serve on multi-disciplinary teams with various

departments relative to services to Indian children and families. These funds help develop and provide

training material resources on social services to children, elderly, and families.

Standard/Problem 

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) workers in state programs have caseloads amounting

to one-half of the general assistance caseload for Tribal and BIA staff. Caseloads and caseworkers were

used for illustrative purposes and clerical, supervisory staff and other administrative costs were not

calculated. The BIA baseline data is an average caseload of general assistance cases as compared to the

same caseload of TANF cases in a state program. The BIA’s average was used to project nationwide

totals for comparison purposes.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE:

Table 4

Public Safety and Justice
60This program is not included in the analysis of TPA funds because in FY 1999 the Congress moved the

program from TPA to Special Programs and Pooled Overhead activity within the Operation of Indian Programs

account.

61This is a limited program administered only by a few Tribes. In subsequent data collection, this program

will be included for analysis.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 56

Tribal Courts

$11,846,000

Law

Enforcement60

Community Fire

Protection61

New Mexico

County

Metropolitan

Courts

Nebraska

County Courts

Washington

District Courts

Average Salary

of Judges

Average

amount of

funding

$32,000/year per

judge

158 Tribes receive a

total of $6,582,772. 

With an average of

$41,663 per Tribe

$90,154/year per

judge

158 State Courts

receive a total of 23.9

million with an

average of $151,265

per State court

$32,000 salary -

$90,154 salary

$6,582,772 per

Tribe minus

$23.9 million

per State

$58,154

$17,317,228 

Tribal Courts

The goal of this program is to promote Indian Self-Determination and strengthen Tribal governing systems.

Although limited funding has delayed the development of Tribal justice systems by many Tribes, new

Federal initiatives (welfare reform and community policing) have increased the demands on Tribal justice

systems that perform services far in excess of available resources. More than 250 Tribal justice systems

and Courts of Indian Offenses are supported by BIA funds. 

Standard/Problem

Throughout the past several decades, a number of attempts have been made by nationally recognized

organizations to compare Tribal courts and state courts. These attempts have been made along the lines

of number of cases heard, types of cases heard, service population, proximity to major centers of

population, geographic location, salaries, and support staff, to name a few of the comparative factors that

have been sought. Although some Tribal courts may look and act like state courts in some respects, there

is no complete comparison to be made between the two. Tribal courts range from traditional court of

Pueblo New Mexico which handles internal social issues involving custom and tradition and serve a

population of 200 members, to the Cherokee Nation courts of Oklahoma which serve a population of

50,000 Tribal members and resemble Anglo-Americancourts. As a result of the Indian Child Welfare Act,

some Tribal courts are exercising jurisdiction over particular type of cases involving child placement but

must submit all other civil cases to state court jurisdiction (Indian Child Welfare Act). The courts of limited

jurisdiction in New Mexico, Washington, and Nebraska were selected because the size of these courts

most closely corresponds to Tribal courts.

Table 5 is a summary by program activity of the total amount of funds the 18 volunteer Tribes received in

TPA funding, the unmet need, and the aggregate of Tribal funds being used to help meet the identified need.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 57

 As is evident in the summary, even with the combined TPA funding and Tribal revenues, the unmet need

far exceeds the total funding of the programs.

Table 5 • Consolidated Report of Preliminary Need and Tribal Supplement of 18 Volunteer

Tribes 

Tribal Priority Allocations BIA FY 1998

Enacted

Preliminary

Need

Tribal

Supplement

Other Aid To Tribal Government 2,182,870 19,160,159 7,164,974

Services to Children, Elderly and Families 7,561,118 40,131,653 940,509

Indian Child Welfare Act 1,669,341 25,529,665 384,151

Johnson O’Malley 5,491,119 2,168,817 174,500

Higher Education Scholarship 13,990,780 71,773,462 4,884,418

Adult Education 300,719 66,800 15,000

Tribal Courts 3,294,906 9,799,235 5,665,747

Adult Vocational Training (AVT) and Direct Employment 1,005,802 956,219 79,000

Economic Development/Loan Guarantee 553,610 3,631,654 14,693

Agriculture Range 6,087,272 5,892,041 1,202,785

Forestry 2,021,415 51,763,529 2,758,050

Water Resources 1,032,315 7,145,562 2,545,062

Wildlife and Parks 1,135,186 52,773,562 4,443,634

Minerals and Mining 1,787,051 973,364 733,364

Realty/Appraisals 446,602 6,104,485 5,626,585

Total $48,560,106 $297,830,341 $36,632,472

As is indicated in Table 5, TPA funds are less than 16 percent of the resources needed by the Tribes in the

sample to fund their basic governmental services. The tables demonstrate that Tribes with resources of

their own are using those funds to supplement the funds provided by TPA. The need far exceeds the

combined Federal and Tribal resources.

While the data collected demonstrates that Tribal governments receive less than they need, one must be

cautious in drawing precise conclusions from this information. This must be considered a preliminary

report, and additional testing and data collections needs to be accomplished. Certain questions which

require further study. For example, are the comparables used the most viable? How do we deal with those

services and programs that are unique to Indian communities?

Tribal specific information indicates that this type of analysis requires additional refinement before it could

be used conclusively as a comparison of TPA programs funding levels compared to comparable programs

in the non-Indian community. If the Congress concurs that this approach is fruitful, extensive data collection

process will be undertaken over the next few years. 
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 58

The Eight Northern Pueblos Pilot

The Eight Northern Indian Pueblos of New Mexico have proposed a mechanism to implement a needs

assessment for their Pueblos. They have nearly completed an assessment for the Pueblo of Nambe and

have begun explaining their process to the Administration and the Congress.

Their proposal is to base budget formulation on Tribal needs. Needs will be determined by the Tribal

leadership and presented with explanation and specific accomplishments to the Administration and the

Congress. The annual appropriations can be then compared to total needs and specific results determined.

The reporting of accomplishments would establish the validity of identified needs and provide Tribal

accountability.

The fundamentals of this proposal are that after the needs data base system is developed, the Pueblos will

assume responsibility for program service delivery and determine how to provide services. The Assistant

Secretary - Indian Affairs would review and approve the initial needs assessment and needs data base.

The BIA will provide oversight of the programs to protect the interest of the Federal government. The

Agency Superintendent would become a trust compliance officer and oversee the contract activities.

The needs assessment itself involves community meetings so that the Tribal members being served can

participate in developing the services they need. The Pueblo government refines the expectations of their

members through development of an inventory of needs and a plan for satisfying those needs. The

assessment includes not only the program service requirements, but also describes administrative service

requirements, facilities requirements, project requirements, and time requirements.

Once the assessment is agreed upon by the community and approved by the Pueblo government, it is

presented to the Administration and the Congress. A draft of the Pueblo of Nambe plan was provided in

late June. The Eight Northern Pueblos intend to replicate this process at the other seven Pueblos and

believe they can complete this process within the next 18 months to two years. After BIA and

Congressional review of the Nambe assessment, it may be appropriate to consider Nambe and Eight

Northern Pueblos as a pilot project for implementing a needs based budget process.

Chapter Summary

TPreliminary indications are that current funding meets only one-third of

identified need.

T18 Tribes nearly match BIA support for local government services.

TEight Northern Pueblos propose community involvement in shaping

needs determination.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 59

CHAPTER 4 

MEASURES OF TRIBAL REVENUE

Current Reporting Requirements

Information Derived from Review of Single Audits

Revenue from Gaming Tribes

Determining the type, extent and magnitude of Tribal revenues is difficult. Tribes have no inherent obligation

to reveal their revenues to non-members, and the law does not require revelation unless Tribes are

conducting gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or conducting Tribal businesses out of Tribal

general fund accounts used also for Federal programs covered by the Single Audit Act.

In an era when the BIA had a continuous presence on the reservation and managed an Indian Tribe’s

affairs, BIA personnel knew about all Tribal business activities. In the era of Self-Determination and SelfGovernance, when Tribes conduct the management of their Federal programs, the BIA often does not

know the extent of Tribal businesses. This is particularly true in Alaska and California.

Further, there is no assurance that financial statements and reports exist for all Tribal business. Even if they

exist, that there is no assurance the format and content of the statements and reports are comparable to any

other business enterprise. Finally, the BIA has few staff with the expertise and capability to read and

analyze Tribal enterprise financial statements and determine the amount of revenue made available to Tribal

operations.

For Tribal gaming enterprises there is less of a problem. Tribes are required to provide annual financial

statements to the National Indian Gaming Commission. These statements are protected and were made

accessible to the BIA only because of the provision in Section 129 authorizing the BIA’s access. A

Memorandum of Agreement establishing protocols for the BIA’s use and non-disclosure of certain

information was necessary. A summary of the information collected is reported later in this Chapter. 

While information concerning Tribal revenues is difficult to collect, developing a coherent policy of how to

use the information in allocating Federal funding allocation is equally difficult. It is tempting to say that at

some point a Tribe does not need Federal funding or a TPA base when the base is a fraction of one percent

of the Tribe’s revenue. However, using Tribal business revenue to offset TPA base funding is not a popular

concept in Indian Country even among the Tribes that are most needy and would benefit from a reallocation

of TPA funding. The Tribes adamantly oppose means testing for other than programs intended for

individuals.

In addition, the BIA’s review shows that those Tribes that have significant revenues are not receiving BIA

funding intended for low income people, and if all of the non-trust related BIA funding to such Tribes were

withheld, no large sum of money would become available to allocate elsewhere. Further, there are issues

to resolve concerning Federal obligations such as the trust responsibility and the need to provide law
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 60

enforcement on reservations. Also, Tribes have responsibilities for services and activities beyond those

funded from TPA base allocations that require the revenues generated from Tribal businesses. For

example, TPA does not fund infrastructure like water and sewer systems; interest and repayment on debt

incurred by the Tribe; Tribal buildings such as education, detention, and community facilities; or a myriad

of other programs and activities necessary to run a government and improve a community.

Single Audits

The Single Audit Act of 1984 (Act) (Public Law 98-502; 31 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.) required State and

local governments and Indian Tribes (grantees) that received $100,000 or more in Federal funds in a given

year to have an audit performed for that year. OMB Circular A-128, “Audits of State and Local

Governments,” provided guidance for implementing the Act. This Act and implementing regulations were

effective for fiscal periods ending prior to July 1, 1996. In 1996, the Act was amended by Public Law

104-156, the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (Amendments). The Amendments increased the

threshold for audits from $100,000 to $300,000 in Federal awards expended. On June 24, 1997,

implementing guidance was issued through OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments,

and Non-Profit Organizations,” and OMB Circular A-128 was rescinded. The Tribal government audits

reviewed for the purpose of preparing this report covered awards made in fiscal years 1994-1996 and

were, therefore, subject to the original Act and OMB Circular A-128.

Prior to passage of the Act, grantees were often required to have program-specific audits conducted for

each Federal awarding agency. The Act was designed to reduce the audit burden placed on grantees,

while providing all funding agencies with information on the grantee’s system of internal controls,

compliance with those laws common to all Federal assistance programs, and adherence to specific laws

and regulations governing major Federal programs. The purposes identified in the Act are:

(1) to improve the financial management of State and local governments with respect

to Federal financial assistance programs;

(2) to establish uniform requirements for audits of Federal financial assistance provided

to State and local governments;

(3) to promote the efficient and effective uses of audit resources; and

(4) to ensure that Federal departments and agencies, to the maximum extent

practicable, rely upon and use audit work done pursuant to this Act.

Because the Act is focused on the appropriate use of Federal funds, grantees are provided latitude in the

identification of those parts of the organization that are included in the audit. Title 31 U.S.C. § 7502(d)

states:

(1) Each audit conducted pursuant to subsection (a) for any fiscal year shall cover

the entire State or local government’s operations except that, at the option of such
62

 If a State or local government has multiple organizations which administer Federal awards, paragraph (5)

provides that a series of audits of individual departments will meet the requirement for a Single Audit.

63

 The 1996 Amendments make no substantive change in this area, although the wording is slightly

different: “. . . at the option of such non-Federal entity such audit shall include a series of audits that cover

departments, agencies, and other organizational units which expended or otherwise administered Federal awards. . .

.”

64

 Eleven other Tribes submitted audits, but the information contained in the reports was limited to Federal

funds. Three Tribes, Miccosukee, United Crow Band, and United Villages have established non-profit corporations

to administer Federal awards; eight Tribes, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Old Harbor Tribal Council, Oneida Indian

Nation of New York, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Santa Clara Indian Pueblo, Taos Pueblo, and Shakopee

Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and Upper Sioux Tribe, have designated one Tribal department to administer

Federal awards.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 61

government –

(A) such audit may, except as provided in paragraph (5)62, cover only each

department, agency, or establishment which received, expended, or otherwise

administered Federal financial assistance during such fiscal year . . . .

State, local, and Tribal governments may, therefore, exclude from the Single Audit those organizational

components which do not receive, expend, or otherwise administer Federal funds.63

Scope of this Review

The description and analysis of the information available in the Single Audits on Tribal enterprises is based

upon a review of all Tribal audits issued by the Office of Inspector General prior to November 30, 1998

which covered fiscal year 1994, 1995, or 1996, and included at least some information on non-Federal

revenues and expenditures.

There were 554 Federally-recognized Indian Tribes in 1996. Single audits submitted by 31164 Indian

Tribes (56 percent) met the identified criteria. While the amount of Federal funds administered by some

Tribes does not reach the threshold for submission of Single Audits, there are other reasons why not all

Tribes submit audit reports. As a result of Tribes entering into consortia, the 53 Self-Governance compacts

awarded in FY 1996 covered 190 Tribes. Only the organization to which the BIA directly transfers funds

is required to submit an audit to the Department. Further, not all Tribes administer BIA-funded programs.

According to BIA’s Annual Report, 36 Tribes had no contract, compact, or grant agreements with the

BIA during FY 1996. 

Based upon a review of the audits submitted, it appeared that 79 of the 311 Tribes operated no businesses.
65

 Pursuant to the provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Title 43 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.)

Regional and Village for-profit corporations were established under the laws of the State of Alaska. These

corporations have neither the powers nor the responsibilities of Tribal governments. The corporations are not

required to submit audits to the Federal government and this report includes no information on revenues or expenses

of businesses operated by these corporations.

66

 It is also possible that the business ventures were begun subsequent to the period covered by the

Single Audit Report.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 62

Two-thirds of these Tribes are located either in Alaska65 or California. A listing of these Tribes was sent

to BIA Area Directors with a request to identify those Tribes which the Area Directors knew to be

operating some type of commercial enterprise. The responses from the Area Directors indicated that 24

of the 79 Tribes did have some type of business activity that was not disclosed in the audit reports.66

Audit reports submitted by 232 Tribes provided varying amounts of information on Tribal enterprises.

While almost 1,100 different Tribal enterprises were identified, only 60 percent ofthe Tribes contained in

the audits all of the enterprises. No financial information on enterprises was provided by 16 percent of the

Tribes, and the remainder of the audits, 24 percent, included some but not all of the enterprise data. The

BIA is implementing a process to ensure compliance with the Single Audit Act. This is the first year of the

process and the BIA plans to make necessary adjustments to achieve the desired results.

In 1997, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report entitled “Indian Gaming Industry,”

(GAO/GGD-97-91). GAO identified 187 Tribes that had gaming operations as of December 31, 1996.

While the Single Audit Reports identified 141 Tribes with gaming operations, the differences were more

significant than these two numbers would seem to indicate, because only 122 gaming Tribes were identified

both in the GAO report and in the Single Audit Reports.

To the extent that a Tribal government deposits income from fees, licenses, and taxes directly to the Tribe’s

general fund, it is often possible to identify the gross amount of such collections from the financial statement

included in the Single Audits. The provisions of Section 129, however, require the BIA to exclude from

calculations of net income those amounts “derived from lands, natural resources, funds, and assets held in

trust by the Secretary of the Interior.” It is not possible to ascertain from the audits what portion of the

fees, licenses, and taxes may be classified as being derived from trust lands or natural resources.

Conclusions on Single Audits

The Single Audits cannot be used to determine Tribal revenue arising from businesses, licenses, fees, and

taxes, because not all Tribes are required to submit Single Audits and Tribes may exclude from Single Audit

coverage organizational components that do not administer or expend Federal funds. Further, with the

exception of testing of internal controls, other testing performed by the auditors is concentrated on the

appropriate use of Federal funds and generally does not disclose information on the accuracy of the

revenues and expenses associated with Tribal enterprises.
67 Some reported “losses” were the result of eliminating gaming revenue from the income calculations.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 63

Concerns about Tribal Revenue Use

Although there are severe limitations in drawing generalizations from the data contained in the Single Audit

Reports, the following issues drawn from our review of single audits is provided for consideration in

formulating recommendations for changes in the BIA’s current fund allocation methods. A number of

concerns complicate any attempt to consider Tribal revenues in allocating TPA funds.

Losses From Tribal Enterprises

Of the 232 Tribes reporting enterprise activity, 103 Tribes reported net losses in one or more years

between FY 1994 and FY 1996.67 Some Tribes may choose to subsidize non-profitable enterprises in

order to provide jobs or services to Tribal members that would not otherwise be available.

Fluctuations in Profitability

Fifty of the 232 Tribes reported profits in some years and losses in other years. There is no assurance that

all Tribal businesses will remain profitable. A reductionin Federal assistance due to prior year profits might

well jeopardize essential services in the event of a concurrent reduction in business revenues.

Long-Term Debt

The FY 1996 audit reports identified over $1 billion in long-term debt for 128 Tribes. Almost one-third

of the Tribes reporting long-term debt also reported net losses from business enterprises during FY 1996.

 The distribution of the debts is provided below:

Amount of Debt Number of Tribes

Less than $500,000 54

$500,000 - $999,999 14

$1 million to $4,999,999 35

$5 million to $19,999,999 18

More than $20 million 7

Net Revenues

Of the 86 Tribes reporting profits in FY 1996, 55 percent made less than $1 million, and only 7 percent

reported profits in excess of $50 million. A further breakdown of net revenues is provided below:
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 64

Net Revenues Number of Tribes

Less than $50,000 24

$50,000 - $99,999 3

$100,000-$499,999 17

$500,000-$999,000 3

$1 million - $4,999,999 12

$5 million - $9,999,999 13

$10 million - $19,999,999 5

More than $20 million 9

It is not reasonable to reduce Federal funding to Tribes based on revenues from marginally profitable

businesses.

Retained Earnings

Any plan to offset Federal funding with business revenues must address the question of retained earnings.

If Tribes are to expand existing businesses and create new employment opportunities on Indian

reservations, they must have the ability to reinvest in Tribal business rather than being required to use most

or all of business income to finance government services.

Tribal Gaming Revenues

While Indian Tribes have been involved in business development for decades, only those Tribes on

reservations with abundant natural resources had much income beyond that provided by the Federal

government. The small amounts derived from smoke shops, gas stations, and the sale of Indian crafts and

jewelry did little more than cover the cost of these operations, with a few exceptions. Although

development of self-sustaining reservation economies has been a goal of the Federal government for almost

40 years, the efforts of Federal agencies such as the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Economic

Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, and the BIA have had minimal impact.

More recently, Federal policy, as opposed to Federal programs, has significantly altered the economic

condition of a number of Indian Tribes. Congressional endorsement of gaming on trust lands has brought

hundreds of millions of dollars of non-Federal revenue to parts of Indian Country. In passing the Indian

Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the Congress declared that its purpose is to promote Tribal economic

development, self-sufficiency, and strong Tribal governments. IGRA has arguably come closer to meeting

its stated purpose than any other Indian policy legislation. The profits from gaming operations are to be

directed solely to Tribal government operations and programs; the general welfare of the Tribe and its

members; Tribal economic development; and charitable organizations and local government agencies.

The BIA agriculture, education and welfare programs can be traced back to the removal of the Tribes to

Indian Territory. The West was sparsely settled and the only government was the Federal Government.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 65

Indian agents delivered food and clothes and Indian schools were organized. As time passed and the west

was settled, the Congress authorized the Secretary to enter into contracts with State and local governments

to provide health, education, and welfare services to Indian Tribes. Viewed in the context of the authorizing

statutes, these efforts can be viewed not as a long-term Federal obligation to Indian Tribes, but rather, as

activities that were undertaken to provide an education for the children, for “the relief of distress,” and to

maintain law and order. As the western states were admitted to the union, many viewed Indian Tribes as

solely a Federal responsibility, but in other cases, states assumed increasing responsibility for education and

law enforcement.

With the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, funds were provided to assist Indian Tribes in

organizing governments, developing constitutions, and recording information on members of the Tribe.

Twenty years later, the assimilation and integration policies led to the development of vocational training

and employment programs which were designed to prepare Indian people to compete in the general labor

market away from the reservations.

Development of national programs providing assistance to all needy citizens, such as Aid to Families with

Dependent Children and food stamps removed a significant amount of responsibility from the BIA, but

special assistance programs continued for those needy Indians who did not otherwise meet the national

eligibility criteria – much as the “general relief” programs operated by many state or local governments.

To this day, the bulk of BIA funds are directed to the functions of education, welfare, law enforcement, and

direct and indirect support of Tribal governments.

Over the past 25 years, Federal Indian policy has also evolved to a point where Indian Tribes are

recognized as eligible for a wide range of other Federal programs which provide support to State and local

governments. While the availability of these other resources from agencies such as the Department of

Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of

Transportation, may have reduced the pressure on the BIA budget, virtually none of the BIA programs

have been eliminated. BIA funds are often considered to be those resources which local governments

would raise through property taxes to support local government services. Indeed, the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act specifically states that Indian Tribes may use BIA funds as

the “local” match for any other Federal program.

The most recent comprehensive data on State and Local Finances by Level of Government covers 1994-

1995. Nationwide, on a per capita basis, local governments spent $2,217 in support of programs similar

to those funded by the BIA. This amount includes Federal and State funds which are passed through to

the local government to support local programs. The Federal share of local spending averaged $77 per

capita; the State share averaged $681 per capita; and local revenues supported the remainder of $1,459

per capita. Not surprisingly, the single largest component of local government spending was elementary

and secondary education which accounted for 45 percent ($997) of the total per capita amount. A review

of 16 of the states where Indian Tribes are located identified a range of local per capita spending from a

high in New York of $3,314 to a low of $1,472 per capita in Louisiana (local shares: $2,274 and $969,
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 66

respectively). 
68

 A number of currently successful gaming enterprises realized a loss in the initial one of two years of

operation, so it is likely that some of these Tribes are now recognizing a positive cash flow from these ventures.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 67

AVERAGE STATE PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY FUNDING SOURCE

Entity Total Per Capita Local Share State Share Federal Share

United States 2217 1459 681 77

Arizona 1947 1249 634 64

California 2388 1431 871 86

Connecticut 2117 1484 563 70

Florida 2090 1511 523 56

Idaho 1704 987 678 39

Iowa 1830 1217 556 57

Louisiana 1472 969 452 51

Michigan 2071 1045 959 67

Minnesota 2551 1570 925 56

Mississippi 1507 871 588 48

New Mexico 1721 814 827 80

New York 3414 2274 1026 114

Oregon 2014 1235 636 143

South Dakota 1616 1231 314 71

Washington 2103 1382 660 61

Wisconsin 2354 1409 880 65

The most significant source of non-trust revenue to Indian Tribes is gaming enterprises. The BIA reviewed

all audit reports submitted to the National Indian Gaming Commission for fiscal years 1994 - 1996. For

1996, 166 Tribal gaming audits were available. These audits indicated that 28 Tribes realized a net loss

from their gaming ventures.68 Profits of the remaining 138 Tribes covered a broad spectrum as shown

below.

Gross Net Gaming Revenues

More Than ($) Less Than ($) No. of Tribes

0 1,000 33

1,000 100,000 9

100,000 500,000 12

500,000 1,000,000 6

5,000,000 10,000,000 31

10,000,000 20,000,000 10

20,000,000 50,000,000 22

50,000,000 15

Total 138
69 Tribal enrollment, as reported in the 1995 “Indian Service Population and Labor Force Estimates” was

used to calculate the per capita amounts. For those Tribes that did not submit enrollment data, the BIA’s service

population estimate was used.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 68

On a per capita69 basis, the earnings ranged from less than $1.00 to more than $10,000.

Net Revenues Per Member

More Than ($) Less Than ($) No. of Tribes

0 100 19

100 500 19

500 1,000 11

1,000 3,000 16

3,000 5,000 7

5,000 10,000 12

10,000 15,000 9

15,000 20,000 6

20,000 25,000 3

25,000 30,000 2

30,000 35,000 3

35,000 40,000 0

40,000 45,000 4

45,000 50,000 2

50,000 75,000 7

75,000 100,000 3

100,000 200,000 6

200,000 500,000 2

500,000 7

Total 138

Certainly, some Tribal governments whose gaming enterprises annually generate large revenues per capita
70

 These Tribes would continue to be eligible for support appropriated to other Federal agencies, but

administered by the BIA, such as road construction financed by the Department of Transportation and fire

presuppression and suppression work supported by appropriations made to the Bureau of Land Management. 

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 69

could be deemed to be “self-sufficient.” In terms of BIA programs, these Tribes could fully fund the cost

of their Tribal government and to use their own revenues to match other Federal programs; indeed, for

many, TPA funds provided by the BIA are an unsubstantial percentage of their Tribal government budgets.

For the top 54 most successful gaming Tribes, TPA base funding averages less than one percent of Tribal

funds available with a range of between 24 percent to less than .1 percent.

Even for those Tribes though, there are certain Federal responsibilities that cannot readily, or perhaps even

legally, be transferred to the Tribes. Support from the Operation of Indian Programs (OIP) account70

cannot be withdrawn, for example, from the following:

Elementary and secondary schools currently funded by the BIA;

Grants to Tribally Controlled Community Colleges;

Law enforcement on those reservations where the Federal government retains criminal

jurisdiction; and

Activities related to maintaining ownership, leasing, and income data for trust and restricted

lands.

Furthermore, even prosperous Tribes may be able to demonstrate circumstances which would warrant a

continuation of Federal support for programs or activities other than those identified above.

Thus, even for Tribes that earn substantially more per capita revenue from gaming operations than the

average amount spent by local governments from their own revenue sources, there remains a great disparity

between reservation communities and non-Indian communities. Tribes lag behind in the development of

comparable physical infrastructure (roads, housing, utilities, communications systems, etc.). Tribal

communities also face greater social problems resulting from limited educational and employment

opportunities, and alcohol and drug abuse. Further, Tribes have suffered from having their affairs run by

paternalistic Federal employees for 150 years. The results shifting Federal Indian policies, coupled with

limited resources and investments in Indian communities and in Indian people, cannot quickly be reversed

by a few good years of casino revenues.

Based on FY 1996 data, there are 54 Tribes that generated gaming revenues in excess of $10,000 per

member. The Operation of Indian Programs (OIP) funding for these 54 Tribes for activities other than

those identified above, is only about $10 million. Thus, the “rich” Tribes take only a small percentage of

total TPA funds, and $10 million is an insubstantial amount in the face of the needs that exist elsewhere in

Indian Country.

Further, a profound disruption to the Federal-Tribal relationship would result from a redistribution. The
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 70

TPA funds provided these Tribes make real the promises, both expressed and implied, made to the Tribes

by the United States and have significance far beyond the nominal value. Quite literally, the money does

not matter; it is the principle of Federal financial commitment to Tribal well being that carries great weight.

Finally, the Tribes point out correctly that no Federal funding provided to state and local governments is

dependent on the relative means of those governments. Certainly the BIA cannot articulate a sound

distinction that supports a policy of punishing success where Indians are concerned. This relatively small

amount of money that might become available for redistribution is so insubstantial that even as to those

Tribes likely to benefit from a redistribution of these funds, there was unanimous opposition from Tribal

leaders. Therefore, the BIA cannot recommend implementing such policy of means testing.

Chapter Summary

TThere is no statutory or regulatory requirement for Tribal governments to report

all income.

TSingle Audit reports are available for only half of the Tribes; these audits contain

varying amounts of information on non-Federal revenues.

TIncome derived from trust lands and resources cannot be segregated from other

income.

TIn an effort to create more employment opportunities, Tribes often operate

businesses at a loss.

TGaming profits range from less than $1 per member to over $500,000 per member.

TRevenue must be used not only for current operations, but also to repair 150 years

of general neglect of Indian people and Indian reservations.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 71

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS OF TRIBAL CONSULTATION

What Programs Should be in the TPA Base

General Increases vs. Targeted Funding

Changing the Budget Presentation

Justification of Tribal Requests

Reporting of Tribal Accomplishments

Broad vs. Narrow Program Definitions

Small Tribes Initiative

Reallocation of Current Funding

Means Testing

Voluntary Redistribution

Data Collection

As part of the consultation process for this report, the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs sent a letter to

each Tribe on March 2, 1999. The purpose was to provide an explanation of the TPA report process and

to elicit Tribal responses to a series of questions that had been raised as concerns during the discussions

with the Tribal TPA Workgroup. A copy of the entire letter is included as Appendix 4. The following are

the questions and a summary of the responses. In all cases the TPA Tribal Workgroup’s response is

included. The Assistant Secretary received over a hundred additional responses. After the Workgroup’s

response, each question has additional comments from other respondents and the BIA’s conclusion and/or

recommendation.

1. Should we continue to exclude funding for contract support, General Assistance, the

Housing Improvement Program, and Road Maintenance from Tribal base funding?

TPA Tribal Workgroup Response

The Tribes have differing positions regarding this issue. These programs are currently excluded from TPA

and funds are distributed based on need. Some Tribes are concerned with the under-funding of these

programs and the ability to provide adequate services. On the other hand, some Tribes would like to have

the ability to include these funds in their Tribal base. The Joint DOI/BIA/Tribal Task Force 1994 report

recommended the inclusion of these programs in TPA and identified a process for determining the fairness

of allocation regarding these programs. 

The greater issue involves empowerment of Tribal governments and Tribes’ discretion to use funds. Tribes

should have the ability to choose whether or not they would like to include these funds in their base.

Finally, the Tribal Workgroup representatives support current joint efforts between the Tribes and the

Administration regarding funding and policy on contract support costs. The National Congress of American
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 72

Indians National Policy Workgroup on Contract Support is coordinating with the BIA, Indian Health

Service, and Office of Inspector General to develop both short and long-term recommendations on contract

support costs. The NCAI Workgroup anticipates a final report to the Congress regarding these solutions

to be completed in late spring.

Other Tribal Comments

The TPA Tribal Workgroup Response accurately captured the trend of Tribal responses. Some of the

Tribes fault the BIA for not completing the 1994 Task Force’s recommendations to include these programs

in the base. Other say that the BIA attempts to include these programs in the TPA base were not

acceptable.

BIA Views

The BIA agrees with the Congress and intends to keep Contract Support, General Assistance, Housing

Improvement, and Road Maintenance outside Tribal TPA base funding. Congressional directions in

appropriations report language makes clear that the Congress believes these programs should remain

formula driven and not part of the TPA base funding. 

2. Should we continue to spread general increases in TPA funding proportionately to all

Tribes, or should we target the Tribes with the greatest unmet need for such increases? Should

we first meet all inflationary costs of all Tribes before using a need-based formula to distribute

the remainder?

TPA Tribal Workgroup Response

There is wide-spread agreement that additional funding is needed to address overall unmet need. The

Tribal Workgroup representatives developed five options for distribution of general TPA increases. Each

of these options deals with how possible TPA funding increases could be allocated and supports maximum

flexibility for Tribal decision-making in determining funding priorities within TPA programs. This flexibility

is consistent with the principles and implementation of Self-Determination and Self-Governance. The goal

of each of these options is to ultimately increase the funding for Indian Country to the level enjoyed by

mainstream America, while increasing the lower-funded Tribes at an accelerated rate to eliminate funding

disparities among Tribes. 

Further, an adjustment for inflation is also an essential factor to consider in any TPA increase to help

address standard inflationary and population growth cost increases in Tribal government operations and

service delivery. While some Tribes have received minimal pay cost increases to their TPA base, these

adjustments do not cover overall inflationary amounts.

Other Tribal Comments
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 73

Most Tribal respondents supported “no change” in the distribution of funds. They are comfortable with the

pro-rata shares based on current TPA base funding.

BIA Views

The BIA believes that future increases in TPA should be directed to Tribes with the greatest need. While

the current allocation formula only rarely produces gross disparities in TPA funding, the BIA cannot say

that TPA funds go where they are needed most. While the BIA supports the basic notion that Tribes

should receive funds to meet reasonable increased cost, future appropriations are unlikely to increase

sufficiently to provide for both inflationary cost increases and a meaningful general increase in TPA.

The BIA believes that much of the controversy related to the allocation of TPA came from two questions

that the Congress asked the BIA. The first asked how general increases to TPA were allocated to the

Tribes. The response was that the distributions are proportionate based on each Tribe’s TPA base. The

second question asked how Tribes get an established base. The response was that the base is dependent

upon historical funding levels.

Earlier in this report it was explained the influences on Tribes’ TPA bases. The BIA has argued, and the

Tribal Workgroup agreed, that Tribal needs should be used to allocate future TPA increases. However,

the Tribal Workgroup also argued that the BIA should first meet all inflationary cost of Tribes. Each of the

Workgroup’s proposed distribution formulas either assumed that inflationary costs would be met prior to

distribution of the remainder of any future increase, or to similar effect, that some percentage of any

increase would be distributed pro rata with the remainder distributed on the basis of need.

As to inflationary costs, two practices mitigate the impact of inflation on existing programs. First, when the

Congress approves the BIA request for uncontrollable costs, the request includes funding for pay-related

inflationary costs to Tribes with P.L. 93-638 contracts and compacts. So to the extent that the Congress

concurs on these costs, the cost of pay inflation is met. It is not necessarily the amount Tribes want, as the

parameters of such costs are restricted by the level of funding available for the program rather than full

staffing level needs. The second point is that contract support indirect cost rates are negotiated and

adjusted annually. Increases in costs, including inflation, are accepted by the Inspector General. If full

funding for contract support were made available by the Congress, those inflationary costs would also be

covered each year. Therefore there are mechanisms to address inflationary costs. However, there is no

mechanisms address actual need. Where needs are greater for the Tribe with a smaller TPA base, then

a proportionate TPA general increase makes that Tribe relatively worse off. Consequently, if the Congress

intends to direct TPA funding to the areas of greatest need, the allocation of future TPA increases must be

based upon actual need measured objectively and consistently. This will require additional effort to develop

a data base of Tribal needs that is acceptable to the Tribes, the Congress, and the BIA.

3. How could we restructure our budget submissions to the Congress to more clearly

present information on Self-Governance, Self-Determination, and direct service programs on a
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 74

Tribe-by-Tribe basis?

TPA Tribal Workgroup Response

The Tribal Workgroup representatives question whether a major re-structuring of the BIA budget is

necessary and believe rather that the key issue is accountability for funds and ability to justify additional

budget increases to meet Tribal unmet need (see question #4 below.) The Tribal Workgroup

representatives recommend that Tribal governments must be consulted on any proposed BIA budget restructure and that this re-structure would need to by fully reviewed by Tribes before implementation of any

changes.

The Tribal Workgroup representatives do agree, however, that any budget submission should clearly

present information on Self-Governance, Self-Determination, and direct service programs and that some

improvements can be made in displaying this information. While this is an administrative responsibility,

Tribes are concerned that a return to a BIA budget structure that requires detailed line item accounting

would not adequately reflect Tribal flexibility in program re-design and re-allocation of funds. 

Other Tribal Comments

The majority of Tribal comments did not support a restructure of the BIA’s budget.

BIA Views

The BIA is not proposing to make any change in terms of the programs that can be contracted, the funds

that can go into a Tribe’s base, or Tribal authority to shift funds from one subactivity to another. Instead,

the BIA seeks only a more helpful presentation of the budget to facilitate Congressional consideration of

its budget requests.

The BIA developed two alternative structures as part of the development of the report. Both attempt to

improve the structure to make the BIA’s budget more compatible with the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA). Both attempt to provide a clearer separation of what funding goes directly to Tribes

and what funding is retained by the BIA to provide services.

The current budget justifications do not allow the Congress to easily determine the total amount of

Operation of Indian Programs (OIP) funds which are proposed for major categories. For example, to

determine the amount requested for Education, it is necessary to add amounts included within TPA, OtherRecurring Programs, and Special Programs and Pooled Overhead. Similarly, funds for the management

of natural resources are included in each of the activities.

The following discussion is limited to the OIP Account. The goal of any restructuring should be to provide

for easy identification of the total amount of funds which support services on Indian reservations; to
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 75

separately identify those amounts for fulfilling the Federal trust responsibility; to better identify the cost of

administering Indian Affairs; and to simplify the budget justifications while improving the quality of the

information provided.

Option 1.

The Operation of Indian Programs (OIP) account would be reduced from six activities to three. These are

described below.

I ACTIVITY: TRIBAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT – The objective is to show all OIP resources

that directly support activities typically carried out by local governments. It is designed to provide

for better/easier comparison of tribal government spending to spending of other local governments.

The budget formulation and execution procedures for the portions of the programs in this activity

which are presently within the “base” TPA budgets would be unchanged. Further improvements

in the usefulness of the information contained in the budget justifications could be made if the

amounts currently included in Consolidated Tribal Government Programs and Self-Governance

Compacts were identified by program, rather than by award mechanism. 

Subactivity: Education

1. Elementary and Secondary Education

2. Higher Education

3. Continuing Education

Subactivity: Family Services (Public Welfare)

1. Welfare Assistance

2. ICWA

3. Administration of Family Services

4. Housing Improvement

Subactivity: Public Safety

1. Law Enforcement

2. Corrections

3. Fire Protection

Subactivity: Natural Resources

1. Agriculture and Range Management

2. Forestry

3. Fish and Game

4. Water Resources

5. Minerals and Mining

6. Integrated Resource Planning and Management
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 76

Subactivity: Community Development

1. Solid Waste Management

2. Road Maintenance

3. Economic Development

4. Direct Employment

Subactivity: Tribal Government Operations

1. Tribal Operations

2. Judicial and Legal Services

3. Contract Support

II ACTIVITY: FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES: Funding for these functions would not be

subject to Tribal priority setting; funding would be determined based upon national standards. This

would better enable the Department to have “certification” by the Special Trustee that the budget

for trust operations is adequate. Functions could still be contracted, but Tribes would have to

operate to Federal standards, and these programs could not be “redesigned.”

Subactivity: Land Operations

4. Land Titles and Records

5. Appraisals and Leasing

6. Lease Monitoring and Compliance Enforcement

7. Cadastral Surveys

8. Environmental Quality

9. ANILCA/ANSCA

Subactivity: Trust Funds Billing and Collections

Subactivity: Probate Management

Subactivity: Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation

III ACTIVITY: GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: This activity includes the costs of managing and

administering the BIA. This activity would not be subject to Tribal priority setting.

Subactivity: Management of Agency Operations – includes those amounts presently in TPA for

General Administration.

Subactivity: Regional Operations – includes those amounts presently in the Area Office

Operations activity.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 77

Subactivity: Headquarters Operations

Subactivity: Pooled Overhead

Display of OIP

It is possible to identify in the budget justification those amounts that are subject to Tribal priority setting

without having a separate activity for TPA. The following examples show three different options for budget

justification displays. The examples are meant to be illustrative – not exhaustive.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 78

Activity: Tribal Community Support

Subactivity: Education

Functional Categories Program Element FY 1998 Enacted

A: Elementary and Secondary Education 478,921

 Formula Funding School Operations 460,387

 Tribal Priority Base Johnson-O’Malley Educational Assistance 18,534

B. Higher Education 74,449

 Formula Funding Tribally Controlled Community College

Grants

29,911

 Tribal Priority Base TCCC Supplements 1,024

Scholarships 29,495

 Project Grants Special Higher Education Scholarships 1,337

 Other Post-Secondary Schools 12,682

C. Continuing Education 13,369

 Tribal Priority Base Adult Education 2,663

Adult Vocational Training 9,202

Other Education 1,504

Total, Education 566,739

Activity: Tribal Community Support

Subactivity: Natural Resources Management

Program Element TPA Base Formula

Funding

Competitive

Awards

Project

Specific

Total

Agriculture and Range 19,682 11,772 1,959 298 33,711

Forestry 20,762 9,155 6,544 36,461

Water Resources 3,784 7,967 11,751

Fish and Game 4,998 28,410 33,408

Minerals and Mining 2,078 1,308 1,062 4,448

Total, Natural Resources 51,304 20,927 11,234 36,314 119,779
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 79

Activity: Tribal Community Support

Subactivity: Natural Resources Management

Program Element

TPA Base*

Formula

Funding

Competitiv

e Awards

Project

Specific

Total

Federal

Self-Det.

Contract

s

Self-Gov.

Compact

s

Agriculture and Range 9,682 10,000 1,500 11,772 1,959 298 35,211

Forestry 8,762 12,000 10,000 9,155 6,544 46,461

Water Resources 0 3,784 500 7,967 12,251

Fish and Game 0 4,988 5,000 28,410 38,398

Minerals and Mining 1,078 1,000 250 1,308 1,062 4,698

Total, Natural Resources 19,522 31,772 17,250 20,927 11,234 36,314 137,019

* For this example, the split among three categories is simply illustrative.

Summary

It is possible to simplify and streamline the BIA’s budget justification while providing a more comprehensive

view of the total funding available for program activities. Changes to the budget justification would also

more clearly display that portion of the budget which supports Tribal governments and their members. This

would also allow refinements to the BIA’s performance reports submitted under the Government

Performance and Results Act.

Option 2.

Attention in the Congress of late has been on what Federal funds are provided to Tribes for their programs

they choose to operate that were once provided by the Federal Government through the BIA’s

appropriations. While the current budget structure of the BIA is the result of a joint endeavor between the

Tribes and the BIA, it is open to further refinement to allow for improved presentation as to which funds

are eligible to Tribes versus BIA-operated programs. There have been misconceptions as to the level of

funding provided to Tribes under the BIA’s appropriations.

For instance, it has been a misconception that all programs funds under the budget category, TPA, are

provided solely to Tribes. TPA, in fact, includes sole funding for Agency operations and limited funding

to supplement Area Office operations. It is also not widely known that other programs in other BIA budget

categories provide funding to Tribes to assist in Tribally-operated programs.

In response to Congressional concerns, as well as Tribal desire to see a clear presentation of which

programs and funding levels are provided for Tribal programs versus BIA programs, a streamlining of the

existing budget structure would present a clearer illustration of funds specifically for Tribal operations.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 80

The following budget structure continues to build on presenting a clearer delineation of the BIA’s budget

as to what appropriations are provided to fund Tribal programs versus BIA programs.

Government Performance and Results Act

The BIA’s Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plans are geared towards the performance and

accountability of programs under its direct operations. GPRA was not intended to measure

productivity/performance of Tribal Governments. Separating funds that are solely provided for Tribal

operations will present a clearer picture to those who seek to measure the BIA’s performance in the

execution of its duties as outlined in its Strategic Plan.

While many may feel Tribes should be subject to GPRA, it is difficult to set performance goals and

measurements with the current statutes governing the BIA’s oversight of Tribal programs under contract,

compact, or grant unless Tribes agree and/or volunteer to do so. The core intent of these statutes is to

allow more Tribal control and administration of programs operated by Tribes and, therefore, little oversight,

regulation, and administration by the BIA on how the program is operated once it is transferred to the

Tribe. It was the intent of the Congress that the Federal government limit its involvement in the

administration of a program once assumed by the Tribe:

The Congress declares its commitment to the maintenance of the Federal Government’s

unique and continuing relationship with, and responsibility to, individual Indian Tribes and

to the Indian people as a whole through the establishment of meaningful Indian SelfDetermination policy which will permit an orderly transition from the Federal domination

of programs for, and services to, Indians to effective and meaningful participation by the

Indian people in the planning, conduct, and administration [emphasis added] of those

programs and services. In accordance with this policy, the United States is committed to

supporting and assisting Indian Tribes in the development of strong and stable tribal

governments, capable of administering quality programs and developing the economies of

their respective communities.

Streamlining of the BIA’s budget will allow for improved measurement of the BIA’s effectiveness in

carrying out its mission relative to GPRA mandates, while recognizing the Congressional mandates on

allowing for Tribal administration of Federal programs. 

Task Force on BIA Reorganization

The budget restructure recommendation continues to build on the efforts began in the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI

Advisory Task Force on Reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (August, 1994) to fulfil the Self

Determination policy through the Tribal Budget System (TBS). The Task Force Report sought “evolution

of the TBS so that each Tribe’s share of resources can be readily determined and tracked.” This is the

same track that the Congress appears to focus on to determine what resources the Federal government

provides to Tribes for operation of its programs. In fact, this position was reiterated in the report language

accompanying the FY 1998 appropriations, which directed the BIA to consider recommendations of the

1994 Task Force report.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 81

The Advisory Task Force Report also recommends movement of additional programs to Tribal control

within TPA to allow for Tribal control with an optimal goal of 95 percent of BIA appropriations being under

Tribal administration. The Report states the following:

“The Task Force envisions a system in which Tribes control 95% of the program resources

appropriated to the BIA. This system would also ensure resources flow efficiently to the

Agency or Tribal level where such resources may be used in a flexible manner to operate

programs.

When the Task Force began its work, Tribes had input into little more than 20% of the

budget resources within the BIA’s operating budget. The budget was formulated and

formatted based on the BIA organization structure. Tribes were involved in priority setting

only for a small portion of the budget commonly known as “Tribe/Agency” operations. 

... More than half the Tribes had no separate account for their portion of the local budget,

whereby, they could exercise control, make decisions, or set priorities.”

The current budget structure for Operation of Indian Programs categories suggests that only 39 percent

of BIA funds are used by Tribes. This does not take into account other BIA programs that also provide

funds directly to Tribes for their programs. The recommended budget structure provided in this section

would identify programs that are not only in Tribal bases (under the current TPA budget category), but also

other BIA program funds provided to Tribes for their operations. This would increase the identification

of Tribal programs from 39 percent to approximately 44 percent.

The Advisory Task Force Report also states that among its earliest accomplishments in implementing the

TBS was the reformatting of the BIA budget. The TBS calls for maximum possible identification of funding

with the Tribe, school, or location at which funds are to be expended. It also calls for providing a more

stable Tribal base and the continued movement of more BIA programs to each Tribe’s funding base. The

Report took the position that “the first step to accomplish a larger and more stable base was to format the

budget according to how it was distributed and where it was spent [emphasis added]. Since FY 1993,

when the Congress approved the budget format recommended by the Task Force, the BIA has worked

to indicate where funds are expended and to provide separate Tribal allocations as agreed upon by Tribes

in multi-Tribal agencies. This recommendation builds on this progress.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Budget Categories:

Separate the existing budget categories under the Operation of Indian Programs into five budget activities:

Tribal Activities Include programs that are provided to Tribes through existing TPA base

funding and programs in which funds are distributed on a need-,

competitive- and/or criteria-basis solely for the benefit of Tribes.

Education Include programs and BIA operations which provide funding for

Education programs (excluding programs identified as base funding under
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 82

TPA).

Resources/Trust Include programs that provide funding for natural resources and trust

management.

Law Enforcement Include all programs and BIA operations which provide funding for law

enforcement pursuant to Congressional directive in the FY 1999

appropriations.

Bureau Operations Include all programs which are solely for BIA administration and

operation.

Programs

To clearly illustrate the level of funding provided to all Tribes, the description of Aid to Tribal Government,

Consolidated Tribal Government Program (CTGP), and Self Governance Compacts should be detailed.

Each of these programs display a single lump sum amount that covers programs as varied as Agriculture

to Education to Real Estate Services to Community Fire Protection. Yet, without having more detailed

information, it cannot be readily ascertained by the reader exactly how the funds are allocated for programs

by a Tribe.

This recommendation does not seek to eliminate or negatively affect these funding mechanisms. The

purpose is to provide a clear presentation of the programs and funding levels for each Tribe. Funds

included for any or all of these program line items that may be included in a 638 CTGP contract or self

governance compact. Allowing for funds for these three programs to be allocated to the specific programs

will allow for a clear presentation to any reader of the BIA’s budget justification.

Non-Base Programs

Tribal bases would not include Welfare Assistance, Contract Support, Housing Improvement Program,

or Road Maintenance.

These programs are formula driven and should continue to be held separate from existing bases until

consensus is reached with Tribes as to the formula or criteria to be used to make permanent distributions

to base funding. 

The following charts presents the split of the current budget categories (except for Construction and

Guaranteed Loans) and the recommended budget restructure at the FY 1999 Enacted levels. While it is

expected that further refinement of specific programs under the recommended restructure may be needed

for full Tribal program presentation, the chart will present the reader with a bird’s eye view of the improved

budget presentation of programs providing funds directly to Tribes.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 83

TPA

AOP

SPP

NRP

ORP

COP

Tribal Priority Allocations

Area Office Operations

Special Programs/Pooled Overhead

Non-Recurring Programs

Other Recurring Programs

Central Office Operations

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

DISTRIBUTION BY BUDGET CATEGORY

FY 1999 ENACTED
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 84

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

RECOMMENDED BUDGET RESTRUCTURE

FY 1999 ENACTED
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 85

4. What information should the Tribes be asked to submit to support requests for

appropriations, and what reporting should be required to determine the effectiveness of BIA and

Tribal programs?

TPA Tribal Workgroup Response

The Tribal Workgroup recognizes the need for program measures baseline data to be submitted for budget

justification and formulation, fund distribution, and reporting to the Congress. The collection of consistent

data is also needed to meet the goals and objectives under the Government Performance and Results Act and

can be used to justify increased funding to address Tribal unmet needs. Over the past two years, the BIA

and Tribes have worked to develop minimum annual reporting requirements which allow for the compilation

of consistent data elements. This information should be consistent with the BIA budget structure (see #3

above).

Tribes have provided reports and information to the BIA on a regular basis, although this information has

never been consistently compiled and used by the BIA. It is essential that the BIA is provided the capacity

and expertise to develop a national database and maintain current statistical information on an on-going

basis. This initiative should remain a priority objective within the BIA.

Other Tribal Comments

Tribal comments were that they provide reports to the BIA that are not adequately used and there is no

obligation to provide additionalreporting. While some believed the idea of a national data base was worth

considering, they had doubts about the BIA’s ability to assemble and maintain such a data base.

BIA Views

The BIA believes that considerable additional information concerning Tribal accomplishments and Tribal

needs would be useful in presenting, explaining, and defending budget requests. To address this problem,

the BIA will work with the Tribes to develop standards for each program area which will form the basis

of reporting provisions in each contract and annual funding agreement.

5. Should we do away with the “Aid to Tribal Government” and “Consolidated Tribal

Government Programs” line items in favor of more specific line items that better describe the

tribal activities funded by these line items?

TPA Tribal Workgroup Response

The Tribal Workgroup representatives oppose any deletion and/or changing of these programs. However,

better accountability on the use these funds can be identified consistent with the objectives stated above in

question #4.

Other Tribal Comments
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 86

Tribal responses were nearly unanimous in opposition to eliminating these line items. All of the responses

viewed changes in these line item, as a reversal of the policy of Self-Determination and a reduction in Tribal

flexibility in managing Federal program funds.

BIA Views

This question could have been more artfully asked and possibly not have elicited as negative a response.

The issue that the BIA was attempting to discuss is not necessarily one of flexibility in program execution,

but rather providing clarity of intentions in the program planning phase.

The BIA supports the flexibility provided to Tribes and believes that Tribes’ use of the funds is generally

consistent with congressional purposes in appropriating funds. However, the budget presentation to the

Congress should contain a more explicit definition of the programs authorized in each program subelement.

Specifically, CTGP and Self-Governance Tribes should be required to report their intended allocation of

funds to the specific program sub-elements, and the BIA should report those allocations to the Congress.

The BIA should also establish more clear consistent reporting requirements for the Tribes, and compile and

pass this information to the Congress. While the Tribes’ ability to move funds among programs without

reprogramming should remain in place, the BIA should require Tribes to report such moving of funds to the

BIA, and the BIA should report to the Congress on the same. While the Tribal leaders oppose any such

action, the BIA believes it would be helpful to require such reporting.

Many of the Tribal leaders see the debate about means testing and accountability as an issue of who

establishes priorities to an Indian Tribe. From the BIA’s perspective, priority setting is clearly the domain

of the Tribes under the policy of Self-Determination. The BIA does not want to establish priorities for

Tribes. The BIA may have expertise to provide technical assistance to Tribes to assist the Tribes in

establishing stronger governments and better programs for Tribal members, but the BIA is not in a position

to set priorities; the Tribal leadership should do so.

The Congress, as the constitutional body charged with the appropriation of Federal funds has the authority

to establish priorities and to direct the BIA to assure increased Tribal accountability in the expenditure of

appropriated funds. The Congress has expressed concerns about whether Tribes are making the best use

of Federal funds. Some of the concerns raised during the appropriations process relate to the BIA’s

inability to show the Congress exactly how Tribes are planning for and using the funds appropriated. The

BIA’s inability to demonstrate more clearly how Tribes use Federal funds arises from its implementation of

Self-Determination policy, which intends that the Tribes decide how funds are used and not be required to

obtain the approval of the BIA. While Congressional intent to keep the BIA out of the Tribes’ business was

to assure that the BIA did not meddle in Tribal decisions, it simultaneously inhibits the BIA from being able

to provide the Congress with information about Tribal expenditures and accomplishments.

In order to increase Tribal flexibility in managing Federal program funds, the Congress created the ultimate

in flexibility with the Self-Governance Act. Funds for Self-Governance Tribes are appropriated as a single

program sub-element within TPA called “Self-Governance Compacts.” Self-Governance Tribes then

execute all their BIA-related programs with funds from this single line. There is no reprogramming required

to shift funds between and among any authorized programs.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 87

There are other program elements within TPA that have less flexibility than compacts, but still have far great

flexibility in the use of BIA funds. The Consolidated Tribal Government Program (CTGP) program subelement, like the Self-Governance Compact sub-element, allows a Tribe to gather their various programs

into a single program sub-element and have greater flexibility in moving funds among programs without

reprogramming. Tribes have programs ranging from Human Service and Education to Trust Responsibilities

and Natural Resources all collected into the CTGP line of TPA.

Further, there are program sub-element lines that contain a broad range of authorized activities such as Aid

to Tribal Governments. The presentation of the BIA budget makes it difficult to understand the purposes

of the program; some Members of Congress might even believe that the Federal government should not be

supporting these activities with Federal funds.

The Aid to Tribal Government program sub-element within TPA is described as follows in the BIA Budget

Justification:

The goal of this program is to foster strong and stable Tribal governments so they can effectively

exercise their authority as sovereign nations. Existing contracting and compacting Tribes maintain

membership information (rolls) for the purposes of providing Tribal services, according the rights

and privileges of Tribal membership, and, where provided by Federal statute, certifying offreservation treaty rights and eligibility for Federal services based upon American Indian status.

Contracting and compacting Tribal entities perform the ministerial responsibilities of various Federal

functions, including establishing voter lists, registering voters, printing ballots, and other requirements

for secretarial elections. They also develop comprehensive policies, legislation and regulations to

benefit Tribal membership, address Tribal needs, and comply with Federal law. For noncontracting or compacting Tribes, their services are provided by BIA Area and Agency Offices.

In furtherance of the government-to-government relationship, Tribal Operations staff continue to

assist Federally recognized Tribes with comprehensive planning and priority setting by coordinating

with other Federal, State and local agencies to promote and strengthen Tribal governing systems.

As required by Tribal and Federal law, staff also provide technical assistance, review, oversight and

approval of claims settlements, judgment distributions, secretarial elections (adoption, revision or

amendment of Tribal constitutions), Tribal governing enactments (codes, ordinances, and

resolutions), attorney contracts, Section 81 contracts with Indians, Tribal operating budgets,

administrative appeals, appeals under the Indian Judgment Act, Tribal revenue distribution, and

assistance to other agencies, congressional offices, and the general public.

Where established, staff administer courts of Indian offenses; request waivers of 25 CFR Part 11

when deemed appropriate; ensure an orderly transfer of records and functions when reassumed by

Tribes; retain prosecutors and public defenders to aid the courts in the fair and orderly

administration of justice and appoint magistrates when concurring Tribal resolutions are received.

The BIA has further confused this issue through attempts to reduce the number of budget lines and tying

those lines to performance goals required under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

This attempt to reduce lines has lead to program sub-elements that have an even greater breadth of activities
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 88

and more flexibility, such as combining Aid to Tribal Government with CTGP.

6. What should our policy be for funding extremely small Tribes? Should the Congress

require regional consortia in order to create economies of scale? Should the Congress encourage

such consortia and how might it do so?

TPA Tribal Workgroup Response

The Joint DOI/BIA/Tribal 1994 report provided recommendations and guidance on funding for small Tribes.

Over the past five years, the Administration has requested funding to implement these recommendations.

The Tribal Workgroup representatives recommend that a minimum base for basic governmental functions

be provided to Tribes. However, funding of these basic governmental functions should be separately

identified from other service programs as outlined in the 1994 Joint DOI/BIA/Tribal 1994 report.

No, there should be no legislative or administrative requirement for consortium, although incentives for

consortium can be considered. For example, under the BIA policy for Indian Child Welfare, Tribes which

formed a consortium were provided financial incentives of increased funding for direct services.

Other Tribal Comments

Tribal leaders from Alaska and California were adamantly opposed to any change in the small Tribes

program funding. Nationally, some of the Tribal leaders understood the problem of very small Tribes where

the membership is so small that the Tribe has difficulty establishing a government and financially managing

program with adequate divisions of authority. Consortia were opposed if required, but supported if

voluntary.

BIA Views

Funds will continue to be earmarked for the original Tribes in case their activities, as proposed in their

statement of work, justifies increased resources up to the minimum base funding level of $160,000. Funds

will not be used to pay BIA personnel costs at any level of the organization, with the exception of when an

Agency provides the program service directly.

The Small Tribes Initiative was developed by the Joint Tribal/Bureau of Indian Affairs/Department of the

Interior Task Force on BIA Reorganization (Task Force). The Initiative was established to address a

funding allocation process that consistently failed to take into consideration the basic funding needs of small

Tribes. These Tribes have small memberships and most have little or no land or other natural resources.

 The Initiative ensures that all Tribes, regardless of size and land or natural resources, will receive a recurring

base funding amount of $160,000 for Tribes in the continental United States and $200,000 for Tribes in

Alaska. The base funding amount is considered sufficient to enable small Tribes to put in place and maintain

the management systems necessary to account for funds and ensure compliance with applicable laws and

regulations. The funding also permits Tribes to establish and maintain administrative mechanisms sufficient
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 89

to establish viable Tribal office operations and service delivery systems.

To be eligible under this Initiative a Tribe must be a small Tribe, which is defined as a Tribe with a population

of 1,500 or less Indian people living on or near their reservation. This definition does not differentiate

among small Tribes based on size nor does it take into account Tribal revenue. All Tribes with populations

from 1 to 1,500 are small Tribes according to this definition.

The Task Force report to the Congress resulted in an initial appropriations of $2,000,000 for the Initiative

in FY 1995. This allowed increased funding for 100 small Tribes. There was no appropriation for the

initiative in FY 1996, but a $4,000,000 appropriation in FY 1997 was shared by 160 of the 310 Tribes

identified as small Tribes. In FY 1998, the Congress instructed the BIA to fund all small Tribes at

$160,000. Small Tribes were awarded contracts in amounts up to $160,000, which became the base

funding amount for those Tribes.

Although the Initiative was implemented according to Task Force design, serious concerns were raised when

it was found that Tribes with populations of as few as 1, 2, or 3 members had been awarded $160,000

contracts and were scheduled to receive the same amount on a recurring basis. There are a number of other

Tribes with little or no service population or program eligible Tribal members in their respective service

areas.

The funding provided to small Tribes should enable these Tribes to develop the necessary infrastructure to

function as a government and provide the services that tribal members expect from their government. The

funding should also allow these Tribes to develop the capacity to enter into contracts and grants with any

and all available funding sources as a means to develop and/or establish service delivery systems to meet

the needs of their members.

During discussions on the small Tribes issue and possible small Tribes policy, the debate became rather

contentious. The BIA will develop and consult on a clarification of small Tribes policy. The intention of the

policy will be to assure that small Tribe funding is only provided to a Tribe that has demonstrated that it has

the need and established the basic infrastructure with which to manage the funds, establish programs, and

provide services to its people.

Changes to the Small and Needy Tribes Initiative may result in the withholding of funds from some of the

Tribes with very small populations which have received funds in past fiscal years. When funds are withheld

from a Tribe for any reason, funds will be retained within the respective Area Office to be distributed to the

other small Tribes within the Area. If excess funds cannot be used for other small Tribes within the Area,

the Area Office will inform the Central Office and funds will be withdrawn for redistribution to other Areas.

7. Should existing TPA allocations be revised to eliminate disparities among Tribes?

Should we rely instead on targeting increases in future funding levels to eliminate these

disparities? Is it realistic to rely on future increases?

TPA Tribal Workgroup Response
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 90

No, existing TPA should not be re-allocated. Consistent with question #2 above, TPA increases should be

targeted to address disparities as well as provide for some adjustment for inflationary costs of existing

programs. Finally, yes, it is realistic to rely on future increases due to the high level of unmet need in Indian

Country.

Other Tribal Comments

The vast majority of Tribal leadership opposed any redistribution of current Tribal base funds. The

predominate view is that all Tribes are under funded, and to take from one Tribe and give to another is only

trying to equalize the poverty. Consequently, Tribal leaders oppose reallocating existing funds. However,

the responses generally supported attempting to reduce or eliminate disparities in the distribution of future

increases in funding.

BIA Views

The inconsistent provision of funds is a major problem when alternative sources of funding do not exist, and

is a sufficiently large problem for many Tribes that BIA agrees with the Tribes that TPA base funding should

not be reallocated.

Over the last several years during the appropriations process, the Congress has asked questions about the

TPA distribution process for general increases and the effect of that process on Tribal TPA bases. The BIA

has responded that TPA base allocations are historical in nature and were determined by a variety of factors,

ranging from past funding for BIA agencies to earmarks provided by the Congress for a specific Tribe.

Attempts to analyze Tribal distribution of TPA base funds by comparing the TPA funds per capita, or per

acre, only seemed to raise additional questions. The Congress seemed to believe that Tribes should receive

similar levels of funding per capita or per acre and asked the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to look

into TPA allocations.

While GAO used a different time frame than prior analyses and considered more than simply TPA base

funding per Tribe, GAO’s analysis shows that there is considerable variation in per capita funding between

Areas and Tribes. For example in their comparison between areas, GAO found the average TPA funding

per capita Nationwide was $601; however, in Muskogee TPA per capita was $121 and in Portland TPA

per capita was $1,020. This level of analysis, though, ignores that the Muskogee Area Tribes tend to have

small land bases while Portland Area has both reservations and significant natural resources held in trust.

Further, refinement of the per capita and per acre analysis was conducted during the development of data

for this report. The TPA Workgroup attempted to divide programs into those related to human services and

those related to land, and then conduct per capita and per acre analyses. While the analysis provides a

closer relationship between the purposes of funding and an indicator such as population serviced or acres

of land, the analysis only proves that distributions can be made using simple measures like populations or

land area.

One of the subgroups of the TPA Workgroup addressed the funding distribution and allocation issue.

During its deliberations, it developed a spreadsheet model that took another step toward mathematical
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 91

allocation of TPA funding. The subgroup’s efforts were directed toward development of a model to show

“how possible TPA funding increases could be allocated and supports maximum flexibility for Tribal

decision-making in determining funding priorities.” The model could also serve as a basis for reallocating

existing funds based on per capita and per acre differences between Tribes.

The simple elegance of a single indicator of equitable Tribal treatment continues to come up as a reasonable

means to distribute funds. The power of per capita and per acre calculations lies in the ease of making them,

when we do not know with any certainty the actual measure of Tribal and individual Indian needs.

The Joint Task Force on the Reorganization of the BIA, the GAO, the current BIA/Tribal TPA Workgroup

and nearly every other entity that has considered the distribution of funds issues has come to the same

conclusion — that Indian funding should be allocated to individual Tribes based upon Tribal needs.

Mathematical models for distribution of funds can easily be developed. However, as the model parameters

change, Tribes will gain and lose funding as frequently as the models are run with additional or revised data.

This creates a situation where Federal funding is made available inconsistently and cannot be relied on to

satisfy either tribal or individual Indian needs.

8. Should the most prosperous Tribes be required to give up their TPA allocations? Under

what circumstances? How should we redistribute any savings realized under such a policy? Are

there any programs that must be funded for even the most prosperous Tribes?

TPA Tribal Workgroup Response

No, Tribes should not be required to give up their TPA allocations. Consistent with Federal treatment of

other governmental entities, any standard or criteria used to define “prosperous” should not be considered

for Tribal governments. However, Tribes who voluntarily return their TPA funding should have a say in how

these funds are distributed. This decision should be made on an annual basis and accounting of these Tribes’

TPA funding must be tracked by the BIA. 

All Tribes must be funded to fulfill the United States Government’s unique responsibilities to Indian Tribal

governments which are grounded in the Constitution, and treaties developed by the Congress and the

Federal common law over the course of more than 200 years.

Other Tribal Comments

Tribal leaders expressed both considerable concern about the definition of “prosperous” as well as

resentment that the BIA would consider requiring a Tribe to give up their TPA allocations. They saw no

circumstances where a Tribe should be required to give up its TPA base funding.

BIA Views

BIA agrees with the TPA Tribal Workgroup and the responding Tribal leaders that Tribes should not be

required to give up their TPA allocation based on prosperity or some measure of self-sufficiency.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 92

9. Instead of requiring the most prosperous Tribes to return their TPA allocations, should

we encourage them to do so? What incentives might be offered to encourage the Tribes?

TPA Tribal Workgroup Response

Return of TPA allocations is an individual Tribal decision and such voluntary actions should be based upon

individual Tribal and BIA negotiations. Legislative incentives and proposals (e.g. provisions for tax-exempt

status, jurisdictional issues) could be considered by the Congress. Any specific incentives would be

negotiated by a Tribe in exchange for return of TPA funding. The Federal government must ensure the

preservation of the Tribe’s base funding. Negotiations for the voluntary return and associated conditions

for use of these funds would occur annually. Any TPA funds returned to the BIA would not diminish the

Federal Government’s trust responsibility to that Tribe, or the Government-to-Government relationship

between the United States and that Tribe or that Tribe’s ability to access future appropriations. 

The re-allocation of TPA funding returned to the BIA would be on an annual basis based on negotiations

with those Tribes. The Tribe’s TPA base would remain eligible for any adjustment to TPA based on future

increases. Finally, distribution of these funds to another Tribe would not be considered part of that recipient

Tribe’s on-going base. 

Other Tribal Comments

Tribal leaders generally felt that if a Tribe had no unmet needs, it should voluntarily give back its TPA

funding. However, the emphasis remained that it was up to the Tribe to decide its status. Some leaders

went so far as to request that Tribes that could afford to give up TPA funds consider doing so, but under

no conditions did Tribal leaders believe Tribes should be required to give up funding.

BIA Views

The BIA continues to support a voluntary program of Tribal return of TPA base funding. Several Tribes

have agreed to return TPA funds and others have expressed interest in returning TPA funds. In general,

Tribes have concerns that the Federal promises remain unchanged, but also the Tribes would like a say in

how their returned funds are used. The BIA has encountered the problem that it lacks the authority to

expend returned funds for the purposes wanted by Tribes. Particularly, Tribes have interest in supporting

Tribal members in urban settings away from the reservation and the BIA lacks authority to expend funds for

these purposes. To resolve the issues of uses for returned funds and concerns about coverage under the

Federal Tort Claims Act, the BIA is entering into memoranda of understanding or agreement with Tribes

returning TPA funds when appropriate.

10. If we are directed by the Congress to reallocate TPA on the basis of tribal needs and

tribal revenues, what information should BIA be required to collect and how should BIA collect

it? If BIA collects proprietary information, what measures should we take to protect its

confidentiality?

TPA Tribal Workgroup Response
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 93

As stated above, the Tribal Workgroup representatives remain strongly opposed to any re-allocation of

TPA including any provisions which would require Tribes to return their TPA funding. The BIA must take

measures to ensure that proprietary information is protected within the framework of applicable Federal law,

if possible and if not, through new legislation. The Tribes expect the Administration to oppose any proposed

legislation that would infringe on the confidentiality of this information.

Other Tribal Comments

Tribal responses were varied. Most Tribes refused to address the question. Several stated that when the

Federal Government lived up to its obligations and satisfied unmet needs, the Tribes would provide whatever

information was needed. Generally, Tribes believed that for the BIA to collect proprietary information was

a violation of the Government-to-Government relationship.

BIA Views

The BIA lacks the administrative capacity to establish an information collection system that is opposed by

the Tribes and would require continual vigilance to assure that confidentiality and disclosure laws are not

violated. Neither, we believe, is the Congress likely to provide funds to develop such administrative

capacity.

Chapter Summary

T Tribal governments wish to exercise independent decisions on the composition of base

budgets.

T Tribal Governments are far more concerned by the unequal status of Indian people as a

group compared to the Nation as a whole than they are about any perceived or real inequities

among Tribes. 

T The BIA does not have the ability to accurately maintain, manage, and report performance

data for all Tribes.

T There are conflicts between the laws passed by the Congress in providing Tribal flexibility

in program administration and priority setting and the information requested by the Congress

as to how Federal funds are being used by Tribes.

T Refinement of Small Tribes Initiative is required for extremely small Tribal populations.

T There is no support for reallocation of existing resources.

T Fewer than 10 percent of Indian Tribes have realistically achieved a revenue stream which

would allow them to provide a full range of services to their citizens. Given relative small

proportion of BIA funds that would be available from the TPA base of these Tribes to meet the

overwhelming needs of other Tribes and the significant increased administrative workload which

would require additional BIA staff, reallocation of base funds does not represent a cost effective

solution to meet the needs in Indian Country. 
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 94

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

Respect Tribal Priorities

Target Future Increases

Tribes consider TPA funds to be the most important Federal funds they receive. TPA comprises nearly half

of the BIA's operating budget and is the principal source of funding for most Tribal government operations.

The Congress has authorized Tribes to prioritize funding among the various TPA programs according to their

unique needs and circumstances. These various TPA programs are authorized by legislation aimed at

carrying out the Federal government's responsibilities and obligations to Tribes and individual Indians. 

Until quite recently, the BIA’s service programs were not authorized by specific program statutes, but grew

out of the general Federal/Tribal relationship, the needs of the Tribes, the inherent duties of the trust

responsibility, and treaty and other obligations. The Congress still has not enacted specific authorizing

legislation for most BIA programs; therefore the goals for Indian programs are quite general in nature, relying

on the authority contained in the 1921 Snyder Act (Title 25 U.S.C. § 13). 

A few programs have program specific statutory authorizations. In addition to subject specific programs,

the BIA also operates or contracts or compacts with Tribes to operate certain general programs. Under

a Consolidated Tribal Government Program (CTGP) Self-Determination contract or a Self-Governance

compact, Tribes administer a number of programs under a single budget line. Contract Support and the

Indian Self-Determination Funds defray Tribal administrative costs that support the delivery of program

services.

While the lack of specificity in many authorizing statutes might otherwise be addressed through regulations

or through specific performance criteria included in contract or grant awards, the substantive legislation

governing awards to Indian Tribes removes this authority from the executive branch. The Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act gives Tribes wide latitude in operating programs as they deem

most appropriate and require that non-statutory standards be separately negotiated in each contract. 

Because there are no statutory standards for most of the TPA programs, the BIA has very limited ability to

specify programmatic standards or obtain consistent data across programs from all Tribes. Tribes also have

the ability to reallocate funds from one program to another after appropriations are enacted. The BIA

supports this flexibility, although this practice limits the ability of the BIA to require that funds appropriated

for a specific program be used by the Tribe to achieve specific program objectives.

In general, the distribution of TPA funds within each of the BIA’s 12 Areas was sound; Tribes with larger

populations and/or larger reservations receive proportionately larger shares of TPA funds, with only a few

exceptions. Distributions among the 12 Areas, however, varied widely. Several reasons exist for these

variations.

The allocation of BIA resources among the Areas and the Tribes is based on a complex set of historical,
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 95

geographical, demographic, political and programmatic factors. Today, “base funding” identifies the basic

contract amount or amount of services on which a Tribe can rely from one year to the next - the base

amount from which budget increases or decreases are calculated. This base funding amount is the result of

years of legislation, appropriations, and BIA administration.

A significant influence on the modern Tribal “base funding” has been the existence of a BIA Agency on a

reservation. Agencies were usually located on the larger reservations or on reservations deemed to require

close attention because of the historical importance of the Federal-Tribal relationship at a particular time.

When the Indian Self-Determination Act was implemented in the mid-1970's, Tribes served by a single

agency found it easier to identify Federal funds for contracting than Tribes served by multi-Tribe agencies.

It was perhaps inevitable that the negotiation of contract budgets in the cases of multi-Tribe agencies would

yield uneven results, leading to considerable variety in the subsequent TPA base funding for the various

Tribes. Throughout the implementation of both Self-Determination and Self-Governance, the BIA has

lacked strict guidelines for negotiation of contract amounts, and the process tended to favor the contracting

or compacting Tribes over those who chose not to contract. Over the years, the Congress has earmarked

funds to deal with specific local issues at the request of individual Tribes or even state or local government

officials. These funds have since become part of the particular Tribes’ base funding. 

At various times, especially in the past several decades, the Federal government has emphasized the

development of certain natural resources and provided additional funding for those programs. Additional

funds were provided only to Tribes owning such resources, and those funds were made part of the Tribe’s

recurring TPA base funding. On the other hand, several programs were removed from Tribal recurring

bases during the 1980s. These programs included the Housing Improvement Program (HIP) and the Road

Maintenance program; many Tribes had ranked these programs as top priorities and had allocated a

substantial amount of their IPS (Indian Priority System, the forerunner of TPA) funding for them. When

these funds were removed from the TPA, Tribes that had these programs listed as top priorities lost

significant portions of their base funding. 

At various times, the Federal government has emphasized human services or education programs. At those

times, the BIA has requested additional funding for programs such as adult vocational training, housing

improvement, or social services. Tribes with higher populations received a high proportion of these funds,

which were then made part of their recurring TPA base to meet ongoing needs. However, increased Tribal

enrollment, whether through changes in membership criteria or natural population growth, has not been

considered in distributing additional funds for TPA programs. Migration to and from reservations,

particularly as economic opportunities change, has not been accounted for in any calculations of TPA

funding.

As a result of treaties, court decisions, Executive policy decisions, and Congressional acts, the legal

obligations and funding for particular Tribes have resulted in unique recurring funding levels for those Tribes.

Additionally, these funds were incorporated into various Tribes’ bases to address the prospect of litigation

from these Tribes against the Federal government for failure to support certain activities required by treaty,

statute, or the Government’s trust responsibility. 
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 96

Timing has been important in establishing a funding base for “new” Tribes. Tribes that were newly

recognized when there was funding available for that purpose tend to have more funds in their base than

Tribes who were recognized when there was little or no “New Tribes” funding. At one point, a new Tribe

received funding based on estimated Tribal enrollment and the Tribe’s land base. Currently, new Tribes of

less than 1,500 members receive $160,000. New Tribes of more than 1,500 members receive $320,000.

Since 1994, there has been an effort to target additional resources to small Tribes. The Congress directed

the BIA to fully fund the small Tribes at $160,000 per year in FY 1998. The 1994 DOI/BIA/Tribal Task

Force Report on BIA Reorganization recommended that the minimum base funding for small Tribes in

Alaska be at least $200,000 due to the high costs in Alaska. This recommendation is consistent with other

Federal government cost formulas currently in use, which provide for a 25 percent incremental adjustment

for high costs in Alaska. 

Self-Governance Tribes are widely believed to receive more relative funding than other Tribes. This

perception is largely due to the incentives and efforts to encourage Tribes to adopt Self-Governance during

the pilot period. The Self-Governance Tribes have been allowed to roll all their funding into the single

program sub-element within TPA called Self-Governance Compacts, and when general increases were

provided by the Congress, the Self-Governance Tribes got larger shares of the increase because their bases

were enhanced. Conversely, when TPA suffered a general decrease in FY 1996, Self-Governance Tribes

were cut disproportionately due to their enhanced bases. While there may have been advantages to early

entry into Self-Governance, there is no evidence that there are systematic and continuous financial

advantages in favor of Self-Governance, except when general increases are provided by the Congress.

When reviewing and comparing Tribal funding data between Self-Governance and other Tribes, it is

important to recognize certain difference in budget structure. If a non-Self-Governance Tribe requests an

increase in Services to Children, Elderly and Families for the next fiscal year, the BIA reflects that request

specifically in its budget request. However a similar request for a Self-Governance Tribe is not displayed

in the BIA budget request. 

Many difficulties arise in any effort to develop an allocation system that takes into account the relative means

of the Tribes. Determining the type, extent, and magnitude of Tribal revenues is the first difficulty. In an era

when the BIA had a continuous presence on the reservation and managed an Indian Tribe’s affairs, BIA

personnel knew about all Tribal business activities. In the era of Self-Determination and Self-Governance,

the BIA often does not know the extent of Tribal businesses. There is no assurance that financial statements

and reports even exist for all Tribal business. Even if they exist, that there is no assurance the format and

content of the statements and reports may be readily compared.

For Tribal gaming enterprises, there is less of an information gap because Tribes are required to provide

annual financial statements to the National Indian Gaming Commission. Developing a coherent policy of how

to use the information in allocating Federal funding is equally difficult. It is tempting to say that at some point

a Tribe does not need Federal funding or a TPA base when the base is a fraction of one percent of the

Tribe’s revenue. However, using Tribal business revenue to offset TPA base funding is not a popular

concept in Indian Country. The Tribes adamantly oppose means testing for programs other than those

serving individuals. The BIA’s review shows that Tribes having significant revenues are not receiving BIA

funding intended for low income people, and if all of the non-trust related BIA funding to such Tribes were

withheld, there would be no large sum of money to allocate elsewhere. 
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 97

While Indian Tribes have been involved in business development for decades, only those Tribes on

reservations with abundant natural resources had much income beyond that provided by the Federal

government. More recently, Federal policy, as opposed to Federal programs, has significantly altered the

economic condition of a number of Indian Tribes. Congressional endorsement of gaming on trust lands has

brought hundreds of millions of dollars of non-Federal revenue to parts of Indian Country. The most

significant source of non-trust revenue to Indian Tribes is gaming enterprises. The BIA reviewed all audit

reports submitted to the National Indian Gaming Commission for fiscal years 1994 - 1996. For 1996, 166

Tribal gaming audits were available. These audits indicated that 28 Tribes realized a net loss from their

gaming ventures. Profits of the remaining 138 Tribes covered a broad spectrum. On a per capita basis, the

earnings ranged from less than $1.00 to more than $10,000.

Certainly, some Tribal governments whose gaming enterprises annually generate large revenues per capita

could be deemed to be “self-sufficient.” In these particular cases, TPA funds provided by the BIA are an

unsubstantial percentage of their Tribal government budgets. Even for those Tribes though, there are certain

Federal responsibilities that cannot readily, or even legally, be transferred to the Tribes without their consent.

 Furthermore, even prosperous Tribes may be able to demonstrate circumstances which would warrant a

continuation of Federal support for programs or activities other than those identified above; a few years of

prosperity do not overcome accumulated needs resulting from many decades of poverty.

In general, Tribes lack physical infrastructure (roads, housing, utilities, communications systems, etc.); face

greater social problems resulting from limited educational and employment opportunities, and alcohol and

drug abuse; and have suffered from having their affairs run by a paternalistic Federal government for 120

of the last 150 years. Moreover, based on FY 1996 data, there are 54 Tribes that generated gaming

revenues in excess of $10,000 per member. OIP funding for these 54 Tribes for activities other than those

identified above, is only about $10 million or $185,000 per Tribe. Thus, the “rich” Tribes take less than one

percent of total TPA funds, and $10 million is an insubstantial amount in the face of the need that exists

elsewhere in Indian Country. 

Further, a profound disruption to the Federal-Tribal relationship would result from a redistribution. Quite

literally, the money does not matter; it is the principle of Federal financial commitment to Tribal well-being

that carries great weight. Finally, the Tribes point out correctly that no Federal funding provided to state

and local governments is dependent on the relative means of those governments. This relatively small amount

of money that might become available for redistribution is so insubstantial, that even as to those Tribes likely

to benefit from a redistribution of these funds, there was unanimous opposition from Tribal leaders.

Therefore, the BIA cannot recommend implementing a policy of means testing.

While the BIA and the Indian Health Service provide most of the Federal support to Indian Tribes, there

are many other Federal programs available to Tribal governments. The BIA’s review of the 1998 Catalog

of Federal Domestic Assistance produced an 18-page list of programs that specifically identify Tribal

governments as eligible applicants. While the BIA does not have information to indicate how Tribes fare

when Federal grants are awarded on a competitive basis by other departments, it is supposed that a number

of Tribes would be at a disadvantage, because they generally lack full-time, professional staff dedicated to

writing strong grant proposals. Nonetheless, these programs are available and the BIA has seen increased
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 98

outreach efforts by a number of Federal agencies, which leads us to believe that Tribal participation in these

other programs will show steady increases.

The BIA worked with a Tribal leader workgroup and numerous Tribal consultants in the preparation of

information for the TPA report. The workgroup and its subgroups met numerous times in meetings that were

open to the public, and the Tribal leaders from each Area were encouraged to brief their Area counterparts.

The BIA held meetings with the Tribal leaders from the Aberdeen, Albuquerque, Billings, Navajo, and

Phoenix Areas. A Tribal Leader letter outlining the BIA report and asking a series of questions was sent

to each Tribal Leader. From interaction at the meetings and written responses to the Tribal Leader letter,

the BIA gained considerable insight about the opinions of Tribal leaders. 

Tribal leaders that were part of the workgroup and those involved in both the face-to-face and written

consultations drove home three basic principles concerning the BIA’s TPA funding. They insist that existing

TPA base funds should not be subject to any reallocation. They insist that BIA funding is inadequate for

everyone and should not be moved around to make any Tribe worse off. They insist that there is no basis

for means testing a Tribe. The BIA supports the Tribal leaders in these principles. However, the BIA also

believes that the presentation of BIA and Tribal budgets can be improved and that equity in TPA

distributions can be improved.

The TPA budget presentation can be improved in terms of clarity of what programmatic goals Tribes are

budgeting to accomplish, and the TPA data base can be presented such that all Tribes report comparable

accomplishment data. The BIA can provide greater details concerning what Tribes are budgeting for by

displaying the details of Self-Governance compacts, the Consolidated Tribal Government Program line

element, and further defining the element of Aid to Tribal Government. The BIA will not change the process

of contract/compact award and budget execution, and the Tribes will retain all the flexibility they currently

hold. However, displaying the details of the program element lines cited above will provide a familiar format

showing comparable planning and budgeting for all Tribes. If Tribes further report on the expenditure of the

Federal funds appropriated, the Congress can compare the appropriations with the expenditures.

Most Tribes support continuation of the proportionate sharing of the TPA general increases using Tribal base

dollars to establish the proportionate share and believe that general increases for inflation (a variation on base

proportionate increases) should be provided. Nearly all Tribes oppose any reallocation of current TPA base

funding. The BIA concurs with Tribes that reallocation of TPA base funding should not be forced upon the

Tribes. However, future increases should be allocated based on the needs of a Tribe for program dollars,

not the existing TPA base funding of a Tribe. If future program increases are to be distributed based on

relative Tribal needs, the BIA and the Congress must come to agreement on the appropriate indicators of

needs and a Tribal needs data based developed.

The Tribes are split on the issue of base funding for small Tribes and the use of regional consortia. Most

Tribal leaders continue to support the Reorganization Task Force proposal for small Tribes funding that says

the BIA should provide each Tribe of less than 1,500 members with $160,000 per Tribe in the lower 48

states and $200,000 per Alaskan Tribe or village. While the BIA has not given Federal funding directly to

very small Tribes, the mechanisms for handling their small Tribe funding have varied by Area and a uniform

policy to deal with very small Tribes is required. On the issue of consortia, the BIA has used an incentive
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 99

approach in the distribution of child welfare funds to encourage consolidation of program resources at a level

above the single Tribe. If the Congress agrees that such an approach has merit, the BIA can encourage the

consolidation of Federal Tribal program resources in places such as Alaska and California by using

incentives.

On the issues of Tribal revenues, gaming, Tribal self-sufficiency, and TPA funding, no Tribal leader

supported taking funds away from a Tribe because a Tribe had non-Federal sources of income. However,

no Tribal leader objected to a Tribe voluntarily returning its funding for the benefit of more needy Tribes.

From a review of single audit act reports, while many Tribes have Tribal businesses, most are not highly

profitable and provide much needed employment to Tribal members on reservations. 

The success of the gaming Tribes is very recent and it is unclear if these revenues can be relied on in the

future. Consistent with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, they are investing in their reservations and Tribal

infrastructure to make up for past neglect and to hopefully assure some better prospects for future

generations. The BIA continues to support a voluntary approach of encouraging successful gaming Tribes

to TPA base funds. If the Congress chooses to place additional requirements on funding to successful

gaming Tribes, the BIA recommends that such an approach be sensitive to individual Tribal circumstances

and allow a Tribe the opportunity to show why a reduction in funding would create hardship for Indians

within its service area or otherwise prevent meeting an important Tribal need.

Chapter Summary

TBase funding to Tribal Governments should not be redistributed.

TThe Federal Government does not apply means tests to State and Local Governments. These

governments are eligible for Federal funds because of their status as governments; the same

principle should apply to Tribal Governments.

TAdditional detail in the BIA budget presentations may improve understanding of Tribal

program operations.

TIncentives may prove a cost effective method to encourage development of shared service

delivery among small Tribes.

TIf the Congress changes the current TPA policies and procedures, an appeal process must be

established for those Tribal Governments affected by such a change.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 100

APPENDIX 1

A Description of Major Federal Programs by Budget Category

1. Tribal Government

Self-Governance Compacts – provides funding to self-governance Tribes or compact activities in accord

with the provisions of the ISDEAA.

Contract Support – provides statutorily mandated contract support funding to Tribes for the cost of

administering contracts and compacts issued in accordance with the ISDEAA.

ISD Fund – provides funding for contract support costs and start up costs of new and expanded Tribal

self-determination contracts and compacts.

Community Services, General – provides technical assistance and advice to agency superintendents and

Tribes on all matters related to Tribal government and human services programs, including housing

assistance, social services, and Tribal courts.

Other Aid to Tribal Government – supports Tribal government operations including maintenance of Tribal

membership rolls, certification of eligibility for Federal services, establishment of voter lists and

certification of voters, and development of comprehensive Tribal legislation and regulations. BIA

staff also provide comprehensive planning, review, oversight, and approval of secretarial elections,

and review of Tribal ordinances and resolutions.

Tribal Courts – provides BIA staff support for development, management, and administration of Indian

justice systems, and provides salaries and related administrative costs for judges, prosecutors,

defenders, clerks of the court, probation officers, juvenile officers, and other court support staff for

more than 250 Tribal justice systems and Courts of Indian Offenses in accord with the Snyder Act

and the Indian Tribal Justice Act.

2. Human Services

Services to Children, Elderly and Families – provides funds to support 1,000 or more BIA social and

human services staff, who process assistance applications, provide counseling, and investigate

abuse and neglect charges.

Welfare Assistance – provides basic human needs funding for Indians ineligible for state and local benefits,

including general assistance for living expenses, child welfare assistance for abandoned and

neglected children, care of disabled adults, funeral expenses, and emergency assistance for

hardships caused by natural disasters.

Housing Improvement Program – provides services for needy Indian families who are ineligible for other

housing programs to address homelessness and substandard housing.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 101

Indian Child Welfare Act – provides funds for administrative costs and direct services to children and

families in areas such as licensing and regulation of Indian foster care and adoptive homes; facilities

for counseling and treatment for Indian families; temporary custody of Indian children; parenting

programs; cultural, academic, social, and recreational programs for at-risk children; and Tribal

court training.

3. Education

Schools – supports the operation or funding for 185 elementary and secondary schools; the provision of

impact aid funds to public schools which serve Indian students who live on Indian trust land; the

funding of 27 Tribally Controlled Community Colleges and two Tribal post-secondary vocational

institutions; and funding eligibility for BIA system schools and Tribal colleges through various

Federal aid-to-education programs.

Education Programs – TPA funds are provided for: (1) scholarship grants to eligible Indian students in

post-secondary education, (2) opportunities for Indian adults to obtain a General Equivalency

Diploma (GED), (3) earmarking of funds by Tribes to supplement the operation of Tribally

Controlled Community College curriculum and program operations, and (4) Johnson-O'Malley

Education Assistance programs to provide culturally-related and supplementary academic needs

of Indian children attending public schools. 

4. Public Safety and Justice

Law Enforcement – in order to maintain the fundamental responsibilities of the United States, the BIA

provides law enforcement and community fire protection services within the subactivity of Public

Safety and Justice. The law enforcement program's efforts are geared toward reducing crime in

Indian country and improving the quality of law enforcement and detention services therein. Law

enforcement funds, which support over 200 law enforcement programs covering 56 million acres

of Indian Country and 1.4 million people, are used to employ BIA and Tribal police, including

criminal investigators, uniformed officers, detention officers, and dispatchers, to investigate and

enforce Federal and Tribal laws.

Fire Protection – provides program funds to over 40 Tribal fire protection programs, supports staffing and

training of firefighters, repair of firefighting equipment, purchase of additional equipment, and

provides smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and emergency lighting for public buildings.

5. Community Development

Roads Maintenance – the road maintenance program supports the maintenance of 6,200 miles of paved

roads and 17,800 miles of unpaved roads, providing access to Tribal lands, jobs, schools, health

facilities, etc. It also provides for emergency snow/ice and landslide removal, inspection and

maintenance of the BIA's 745 bridges, and inspection and maintenance of Federal Aviation

Administration airstrips in Indian Country not serviced by other governments.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 102

Job Training – the job placement and training program supports program participants with the preparation

of resumes, aptitude skills testing, and vocational counseling. The program further provides basic

skills training in areas such as computer technology, electronics, nursing, accounting, and building

trades.

Economic Development – the economic development program supports BIA staff review of loan

applications, approval/disapproval of loan guarantee requests, monitoring of loan compliance,

reviewing financial documents requiring Secretarial approval, and reviewing and approving requests

for mortgages on individual allotments.

6. Resources Management

Natural Resources, General – provides technical assistance from BIA staff in support of ISDEAA

contracts involving conservation studies and inventories in the various natural resource disciplines,

and provides assistance in the development of Tribal integrated resource management plans.

Agriculture – provides BIA technical assistance to and support of Tribal agricultural programs contracted

under the ISDEAA, including inventory and research, farm and range planning, farmland

improvements (such as farm drainage and irrigation), rangeland improvements, rangeland

protection, and leasing and permitting services.

Forestry – provides support of forestry on 17 million acres of Indian forest lands encompassing 260

reservations in 26 states, including forest development (managed for sustained yield), timber sales

management, forest inventory, forest protection (controlling levels of pests and insects and limiting

trespass), and others.

Wildlife and Parks – supports more than 40 Tribes' management and enforcement programs for fisheries,

wildlife, conservation, public use, etc.

Water Resources – supports Tribes under contracted programs to collect and analyze baseline data for

managing and developing Indian water resources protected under Federal law, including litigation

support and negotiation.

Mineral and Mining – supports Tribes and individual Indians in protection and preservation of mineral

resources through proper management, including providing technical assistance to Tribes in oil, gas,

and solid mineral leasing, assistance with Indian Mineral Development Act agreements negotiations,

providing mineral lease and contract monitoring and enforcement, royalty management, and records

maintenance.

7. Trust Services

Trust Services, General – supports the fulfillment of the BIA's trust responsibility to protect and preserve

Tribal lands and resources through agency implementation of BIA policies, regulations, and

guidelines, as well as the provision of technical assistance in trust land and resources management
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 103

activities.

Rights Protection – provides BIA staff assistance in the research and development of information to assist

the United States with future litigation and negotiations to resolve claims on Tribes' behalf for

certain treaty and statutory rights, and providing assistance to Tribes in pursuing these claims.

Real Estate Services – provides staff support for real property management, counseling, and land use

planning services to Indians and Tribes for 56 million acres of trust land, including trust land leasing

activities, land acquisitions and sales, preparation and administration of probates, and land records

execution and management.

Real Estate Appraisals – conducted to assure that Tribes and individual Indians receive fair market value

from various real estate transactions, including acquisition, disposal, leasing, permits and easements,

etc.

Environmental Quality Services – supports BIA staff in the collection of information, preparation of

documents, and coordination with consultants regarding compliance with Federal environmental

and cultural resource laws.

ANILCA Programs – upholds the directives of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,

which provides for coordination and consultation with land managing agencies and the State of

Alaska on subsistence preference for Alaskan Natives and administration of Alaskan Native

allotments.

ANSCA Historical and Cemetery Sites – fulfills the mandate of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,

through investigation and certification of Alaska Native historical places and cemetery sites, native

groups, and native primary place of residence, to produce fair and legally valid certifications of

Alaska Native land claims filed under the Act.

8. General Administration

General Administration funding supports the basic administrative responsibilities and activities of the BIA

such as real and personal property management, purchasing, budgeting and financial planning, and

other daily management and control duties regarding reports, records, equipment, and furniture.

It also includes "executive direction" which encompasses agency superintendents and staff who

provide decision-making, direction, overall management of resources, public relations and other

basic responsibilities. In sum, General Administration is the administrative infrastructure ensuring

that the BIA remains operational at the ground level and, thus, represents a vital element in the

BIA's overall mission to satisfy the obligations of the United States to Tribes and Indians for which

the Congress has made it responsible.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 104

APPENDIX 2

1998 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Programs

Which Indicate that Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments May Apply

CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Department of Agriculture

10.001 Agricultural Research-Basic Applied Research Project Grants

10.028 Wildlife Services Project Grants; Provision of Specialized Services;

Advisory Services; Dissemination of Technical

Information; Training

10.064 Forestry Incentives Program Direct Payments for Specified Use

10.153 Market News Dissemination of Technical Information

10.163 Market Protection and Promotion Provision of Specialized Services; Advisory

Services; Training

10.167 Transportation Services Advisory Services; Training

10.220 Higher Education Multicultural Scholars program Project Grants

10.250 Agricultural and Rural Economic Research Dissemination of Technical Information

10.421 Indian Tribes and Tribal Corporation Loans Direct Loans

10.438 Section 538 Rural Rental Housing Guaranteed

Loans

Guaranteed/Insured Loans

10.441 Technical and Supervisory Assistance Grants Project Grants

10.444 Direct Housing-Natural Disaster Loans and Grants Project Grants; Direct Loans

10.445 Direct Housing-Natural Disaster Direct Loans

10.453 Fund for Rural America-Farm Ownership Loans Direct Loans

10.550 Food Distribution Sale, Exchange, or Donation of Property and Goods

10.565 Commodity Supplemental Food Program Formula Grants; Sale, Exchange, or Donation of

Property and Goods

10.567 Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Project Grants; Sale, Exchange, or Donation of

Property and Goods

10.760 Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural

Communities

Project Grants; Direct Loans; Guaranteed/Insured

Loans

10.767 Intermediary Relending Program Direct Loans

10.768 Business and Industry Loans Direct Loans; Guaranteed/Insured Loans

10.769 Rural Development Grants Project Grants
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 105

10.770 Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants

(Section 306C)

Project Grants; Direct Loans

10.800 Livestock, Meat and Poultry Market Supervision Project Grants

10.852 Rural Telephone Bank Loans Direct Loans

10.854 Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants Project Grants; Direct Loans

10.903 Soil Survey Dissemination of Technical Information

10.907 Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting Dissemination of Technical Information

10.912 Environmental Quality Incentives Program Direct Payments for Specified Use

10.914 Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program Direct Payments for Specified Use

10.950 Agricultural Statistics Reports Dissemination of Technical Information

Department of Commerce

11.001 Census Bureau Data Products Dissemination of Technical Information

11.002 Census Customer Services Advisory Services; Dissemination of Technical

Information; Training

11.003 Census Geography Provision of Specialized Services; Dissemination of

Technical Information

11.005 Census Special Tabulations and Services Provision of Specialized Services; Dissemination of

Technical Information

11.025 Measures and Analyses of the U.S. Economy Dissemination of Technical Information

11.026 National Trade Data Bank Dissemination of Technical Information

11.027 Economic Bulletin Board Dissemination of Technical Information

11.106 Remedies for Unfair Foreign Trade PracticesAntidumping and Countervailing Duty

Investigations

Provision of Specialized Services; Investigation of

Complaints

11.108 Commercial Service Advisory Services

11.110 Trade Development Advisory Services

11.150 Export Licensing Service and Information Advisory Services

11.302 Economic Development-Support for Planning

Organizations

Project Grants

11.303 Economic Development-Technical Assistance Project Grants

11.307 Special Economic Development and Adjustment

Assistance Program- sudden and Severe Economic

Dislocation and Long-Term Economic Deterioration

Project Grants

11.405 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act Program Project Grants
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 106

11.417 Sea Grant Support Project Grants

11.427 Fisheries Development and Utilization Research and

Development Grants and Cooperative Agreements

Program

Project Grants

11.428 Intergovernmental Climate-Program Project Grants

11.430 Undersea Research Project Grants

11.431 Climate and Atmospheric Research Project Grants

11.433 Marine Fisheries Initiative Project Grants

11.452 Unallied Industry Projects Project Grants

11.454 Unallied Management Projects Project Grants

11.459 Climate and Air Quality Research Project Grants

11.463 Habitat Conservation Project Grants

11.468 Cooperative Institute for Applied Meteorological

Studies (CIAMS) and Cooperative Institute for

Tropical Meteorology (CITM)

Project Grants

11.469 Congressionally Identified Construction Projects Project Grants

11.472 Unallied Science Program Project Grants

11.550 Public Telecommunications Facilities-Planning and

Construction

Project Grants

11.601 Calibration Program Dissemination of Technical Information

11.603 National Standard Reference Data System Project Grants; Dissemination of Technical

Information

11.604 Standard Reference Materials Dissemination of Technical Information

11.606 Weights and Measures Service Provision of Specialized Services; Advisory

Services; Dissemination of Technical Information

11.610 National Center for Standards and Certification

Information

Dissemination of Technical Information

11.650 National Technical Information Service Dissemination of Technical Information

11.800 Minority Business Development Centers Project Grants

11.900 Patent and Trademark Technical Information

Dissemination

Dissemination of Technical Information

Department of Defense

12.104 Flood Plain Management Services Advisory Services; Dissemination of Technical

Information
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 107

12.111 Emergency Advance Measures for Flood

Prevention

Provision of Specialized Services

12.551 National Security Education-Scholarships Project Grants

12.552 National Security Education-Fellowship Project Grants

12.607 Community Economic Adjustment Planning

Assistance

Project Grants

12.611 Community Economic Adjustment Planning

Assistance for Reductions in Defense Industry

Employment

Project Grants

12.612 Community Base Reuse Plans Project Grants

12.613 Growth Management Planning Assistance Project Grants

12.900 Language Grant Program Project Grants

12.901 Mathematical Sciences Grants Program Project Grants

12.902 Information Security Grants Program Project Grants

Department of Housing and Urban Development

14.155 Mortgage Insurance for the Purchase or Refinancing

of Existing Multifamily Housing Project

Guaranteed/Insured Loans

14.159 Section 245 Graduated Payment Mortgage Program Guaranteed/Insured Loans

14.162 Mortgage Insurance-Combination and

Manufactured Home Lot Loans

Guaranteed/Insured Loans

14.171 Manufactured Home Construction and Safety

Standards

Dissemination of Technical Information;

Investigation of Complaints

14.172 Mortgage Insurance-Growing Equity Mortgages Guaranteed/Insured Loans

14.191 Multifamily Housing Service Coordinators Project Grants

14.227 Community Development Block Grants/Special

Purpose Grants/ Technical Assistance Program

Project Grants; Direct Payments for Specified Use

14.238 Shelter Plus Care Project Grants

14.239 HOME Investment Partnership Program Formula Grants

14.243 Opportunities for Youth-Youthbuild Program Project Grants

14.402 Non-Discrimination in Federally-Assisted

Programs (On the Basis of Age)

Investigation of Complaints

14.404 Non-Discrimination in Federally Assisted and

Conducted Programs (On the Basis of Disability)

Investigation of Complaints

14.405 Non-Discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs

(On the Basis of Race, Color, or National Origin)

Investigation of Complaints
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 108

14.406 Non-Discrimination in the Community Development

Block Grant Program (On the Basis of Race, Color,

National Origin, Religion, or Sex)

Investigation of Complaints

14.407 Architectural Barriers Act Enforcement Investigation of Complaints

14.412 Employment Opportunities for Lower Income

Persons and Businesses

Investigation of Complaints

14.850 Public and Indian Housing Direct Payments for Specified Use

14.853 Public Housing-Tenant Opportunities Program Project Grants

14.857 Section 8 Rental Certificate Program Direct Payments for Specified use

14.862 Indian Community Development Block Grant

Program

Project Grants

Department of the Interior (other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs)

15.222 Cooperative Inspection Agreements with States

and Tribes

 Project Grants

15.224 Cultural Resource Management Project Grants; Sale, Exchange, or Donation of

Property and Goods; Use of Property, Facilities, and

Equipment; Provision of Specialized Services;

Advisory Services; Dissemination of Technical

Information; Training; Investigation of Complaints

15.225 Recreation Resource Management Project Grants; Use of Property, Facilities, and

Equipment; Provision of Specialized Services;

Advis ory Services; Dissemination of Technical

Information; Training

15.252 Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR)

Program

Formula Grants; Project Grants

15.608 Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Provision of Specialized Services

15.620 African Elephant Conservation Project Grants

15.809 National Spatial Data Infrastructure Competitive

Cooperative Agreements Program

Project Grants

15.850 Indian Arts and Crafts Development Use of Property, Facilities, and Equipment;

Advisory Services; Investigation of Complaints

15.910 National Natural Landmarks Program Provision of Specialized Services; Dissemination of

Technical Information

15.912 National Historic Landmark Advisory Services

15.916 Outdoor Recreation-Acquisition, Development

and Planning

Project Grants

15.922 Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act

Project Grants
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 109

15.923 National Center for Preservation Technology and

Training

Project Grants

15.926 American Battlefield Protection Project Grants

15.976 Migratory Bird Banding and Data Analysis Dissemination of Technical Information

Department of Justice

16.005 Public Education on Drug Abuse-Information Provision of Specialized Services; Dissemination of

Technical Information; Training

16.101 Equal Employment Opportunity Provision of Specialized Services

16.103 Fair Housing and Equal Credit Opportunity Provision of Specialized Services

16.104 Protection of Voting Rights Provision of Specialized Services

16.105 Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Provision of Specialized Services

16.109 Civil Rights Prosecution Investigation of Complaints

16.200 Community Relations Service Provision of Specialized Services

16.541 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionSpecial EmphasisProject Grants; Provision of Specialized Services

16.542 National Institute for Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

Project Grants

16.543 Missing Children’s Assistance Project Grants

16.580 Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law

Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grants

Program

Project Grants

16.583 Children’s Justice Act Partnerships for Indian

Communities

Project Grants; Direct Payments for Specified Use

16.587 Violence Against Women Discretionary Grants for

Indian Tribal Governments

Project Grants

16.589 Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization

Enforcement Grant Program

Project Grants

16.590 Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies Project Grants

16.592 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program Formula Grants

16.596 Correctional Grant Program for Indian Tribes Project Grants

16.598 State Identification Systems Grant Program Formula Grants

16.710 Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing

Grants

Project Grants

16.711 Troops to COPS Project Grants
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 110

Department of Labor

17.003 Prices and Cost of Living Data Dissemination of Technical Information

17.004 Productivity and Technology Data Dissemination of Technical Information

17.005 Compensation and Working Conditions Data Project Grants; Dissemination of Technical

Information

17.006 Employment Projections Data Dissemination of Technical Information

17.249 Employment Services and Job Training-Pilot and

Demonstration Programs

Project Grants

17.601 Mine Health and Safety Counseling and Technical

Assistance

Advisory Services; Dissemination of Technical

Information

17.602 Mine Health and Safety Education and Training Training

Department of Transportation

20.106 Airport Improvement Program Project Grants; Advisory Services

20.217 Motor Carrier Safety Training; Investigation of Complaints

20.301 Railroad Safety Investigation of Complaints

20.500 Federal Transit Capital Improvement Grants Formula Grants; Project Grants

20.509 Public Transportation for Nonurbanized Areas Formula Grants

20.512 Federal Transit Technical Assistance Project Grants; Dissemination of Technical

Information; Training

20.600 State and Community Highway Safety Formula Grants

20.703 Interagency Hazardous Materials Public Sector

Training and Planning Grants

Project Grants

20.812 Construction Reserve Fund Direct Payments for Specified Use

20.900 Transportation-Consumer Affairs Investigation of Complaints

20.903 Support Mechanisms for Disadvantaged Businesses Project Grants

Department of the Treasury

21.003 Taxpayer Service Advisory Services; Training

Office of Personnel Management

27.011 Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) Mobility

Program

Provision of Specialized Services; Advisory Services

Commission on Civil Rights

29.001 Clearinghouse Services, Civil Rights

Discrimination Complaints

Dissemination of Technical Information
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 111

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

30.009 Employment Discrimination Project ContractsIndian TribesDirect Payments for Specified Use

Federal Communications Commission

32.001 Communications Information and Assistance and

Investigation of Complaints

Dissemination of Technical Information;

Investigation of Complaints

Federal Maritime Commission

33.001 Shipping Investigation of Complaints Investigation of Complaints

Federal Trade Commission

36.001 Fair Competition Counseling and Investigation of

Complaints

Advisory Services; Investigation of Complaints

General Services Administration

39.003 Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property Sale, Exchange, or Donation of Property and Goods

39.007 Sale of Federal Surplus Personal Property Sale, Exchange, or Donation of Property and Goods

39.008 Federal Information Center Dissemination of Technical Information

39.009 Consumer Information Center Dissemination of Technical Information

Government Printing Office

40.002 Government Publications Sales and Distribution Sale, Exchange, or Donation of Property and

Goods; Dissemination of Technical Information

Library of Congress

42.002 Copyright Service Dissemination of Technical Information

42.003 Distribution of Library of Congress Cataloging Dissemination of Technical Information

42.005 Library of Congress Publications Dissemination of Technical Information

42.006 Library of Congress - Library Services Dissemination of Technical Information

42.007 Reference Services in Science and Technology Dissemination of Technical Information

42.008 Semiconductor Chip Protection Service Dissemination of Technical Information

National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities

45.149 Promotion of the Humanities - Division of

Preservation and Access

Project Grants

45.162 Promotion of the Humanities - Education

Development and Demonstration

Project Grants

45.164 Promotion of the Humanities - Public Programs Project Grants

45.311 Native American Library Services Project Grants
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 112

President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities

53.001 Employment Promotion of People with Disabilities Advisory Services; Dissemination of Technical

Information

Securities and Exchange Commission

58.001 Securities - Investigation of Complaints and SEC

Information

Dissemination of Technical Information;

Investigation of Complaints

Small Business Administration

59.007 Management and Technical Assistance for

Socially and Economically Disadvantaged

Businesses

Project Grants

Environmental Protection Agency

66.009 Air Information Center Dissemination of Technical Information

66.032 State Indoor Radon Grants Project Grants

66.432 State Public Water System Supervision Formula Grants

66.433 State Underground Water Source Protection Formula Grants

66.460 Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants Formula Grants

66.461 Wetlands Protection - Development Grants Project Grants

66.467 Wastewater Operator Training Grant Program

(Technical Assistance)

Project Grants

66.604 Environmental Justice Grants to Small Community

Groups

Project Grants

66.605 Performance Partnership Grants Formula Grants; Project Grants

66.606 Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special

Purpose Grants

Project Grants

66.607 Training and Fellowships for the Environmental

Protection Agency

Project Grants; Training

66.651 Sustainable Development Challenge Grants Project Grants

66.700 Consolidated Pesticide Enforcement Cooperative

Agreements

Project Grants

66.707 TSCA Title IV State Lead Grants - Certification of

Lead-Based Paint Professionals

Project Grants

66.708 Pollution Prevention Grants Program Project Grants

66.713 State and Tribal Environmental Justice Project Grants
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 113

66.802 Superfund State Site - Specific Cooperative

Agreements

Project Grants

66.805 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

Program

Project Grants

66.806 Superfund Technical Assistance Grants for Citizen

Groups at Priority Sites

Project Grants

66.807 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation

Program

Project Grants

66.808 Solid Waste Management Assistance Project Grants

66.809 Superfund State Core Program Cooperative

Agreements

Project Grants

66.810 CEPP Technical Assistance Grants Program Project Grants

66.811 Brownfield Pilots Cooperative Agreements Project Grants

66.926 Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Project Grants

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

78.004 Commodity Futures Reparations Claims Investigation of Complaints

Department of Energy

81.003 Granting of Patent Licenses Dissemination of Technical Information

81.036 Energy-Related Inventions Project Grants; Use of Property, Facilities and

Equipment; Advisory Services; Dissemination of

Technical Information

81.039 National Energy Information Center Dissemination of Technical Information

81.042 Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income

Persons

Formula Grants

81.064 Office of Scientific and Technical Information Dissemination of Technical Information

81.065 Nuclear Waste Disposal Siting Project Grants; Direct Payments for Specified Use

81.089 Fossil Energy Research and Development Project Grants

81.104 Technology Development for Environmental

Management

Project Grants

81.106 Transport of Transuranic Wastes to the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant: States and Tribal Concerns,

Proposed Solutions

Project Grants

Federal Emergency Management Agency

83.011 Hazardous Materials Training Program for

Implementation of the Superfund Amendment and

Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986

Project Grants
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 114

83.548 Hazard Mitigation Grant Project Grants

Department of Education

84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Formula Grants

84.032 Federal Family Education Loans Guaranteed/Insured Loans

84.060 Indian Education - Grants to Local Educational

Agencies

Formula Grants; Project Grants

84.101 Vocational Education - Indians Set-Aside Project Grants

84.170 Javits Fellowships Project Grants

84.206 Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education

Grant Program

Project Grants

84.245 Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational

Institutions

Project Grants

84.250 Rehabilitation Services - American Indians with

Disabilities

Project Grants

84.258 Even Start - Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations Project Grants

84.269 Institute for International Public Policy Project Grants

84.281 Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants Formula Grants

84.318 Technology Literacy Challenge Fund Grants Formula Grants

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

88.001 Architectural and Transportation Barriers

Compliance Board

Dissemination of Technical Information

National Archives and Records Administration

89.001 National Archives Reference Services - Historical

Research

Use of Property, Facilities and Equipment; Advisory

Services; Dissemination of Technical Information

89.003 National Historical Publications and Records Grants Project Grants

Department of Health and Human Services

93.001 Civil Rights Compliance Activities Dissemination of Technical Information;

Investigation of Complaints

93.004 Cooperative Agreements to Improve the Health

Status of Minority Populations

Project Grants

93.005 Project Grants for Facilities to Improve the Health

Status of Minority Populations

Project Grants

93.047 Special Programs for the Aging - Title VI, Part A,

Indian Programs - Grants to Indian Tribes and Part

B, Grants to Native Hawaiians

Project Grants
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 115

93.105 Bilingual/Bicultural Service Demonstration

Projects in Minority Health

Project Grants

93.111 Adolescent Family Life Research Grants Project Grants

93.151 Health Center Grants for Homeless Populations Project Grants

93.158 Adolescent Health Centers for American

Indians/Alaska Natives

Project Grants

93.180 Research on Health Care Outcomes and Quality Project Grants

93.184 Disabilities Prevention Project Grants

93.187 Undergraduate Scholarship Program for

Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds

Project Grants

93.197 Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Projects -

State and Community-Based Childhood Lead

Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance of Blood

Lead Levels in Children

Project Grants

93.204 Surveillance of Hazardous Substance Emergency

Events

Project Grants

93.206 Human Health Studies - Applied Research and

Development

Project Grants

93.208 Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research Project Grants

93.219 Matching Grants for Health Professions

Scholarships to Indian Tribes

Project Grants

93.228 Indian Health Service - Health Management

Development Program

Project Grants

93.231 Epidemiology Cooperative Agreements Project Grants

93.236 Grants for Dental Public Health Project Grants

93.237 Special Diabetes Program for Indians - Prevention

and Treatment Projects

Project Grants

93.238 Cooperative Agreements for State Treatment

Outcomes and Performance Pilot Studies

Enhancement

Project Grants

93.242 Mental Health Research Grants Project Grants

93.289 President’s Council on Physical Fitness and

Sports

Provision of Specialized Services; Advisory

Services; Dissemination of Technical Information

93.358 Professional Nurse Traineeships Project Grants

93.375 Minority Biomedical Research Support Project Grants

93.550 Transitional Living for Homeless Youth Project Grants
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 116

93.551 Abandoned Infants Project Grants

93.559 Federal Loans for State Welfare Programs Direct Loans

93.568 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Formula Grants; Project Grants

93.569 Community Services Block Grant Formula Grants

93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant Formula Grants

93.581 Improving the Capability of Indian Tribal

Governments to Regulate Environmental Quality

Project Grants

93.582 Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to Indian

Lands Due to Department of Defense Activities

Project Grants

93.587 Promote the Survival and Continuing Vitality of

Native American Languages

Project Grants

93.592 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for

Battered Women’s Shelters - Discretionary Grants

Project Grants

93.594 Tribal Work Grants Formula Grants

93.596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the

Child Care and Development Fund

Formula Grants

93.612 Native American Programs Project Grants; Direct Loans

93.613 Mental Retardation - President’s Committee on

Mental Retardation

Dissemination of Technical Information

93.647 Social Services Research and Demonstration Project Grants

93.671 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants

for Battered Women’s Shelters - Grants to States

and Indian Tribes

Formula Grants

93.905 Indian Health Service Research Project Grants

93.910 Family and Community Violence Prevention Program Project Grants

93.933 Research and Demonstration Projects for Indian

Health

Project Grants

93.954 Tribal Recruitment and Retention of Health

Professionals into Indian Health Programs

Project Grants

93.959 Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of

Substance Abuse

Formula Grants

93.970 Health Professions Recruitment Program for

Indians

Project Grants

93.991 Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant Project Grants
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 117

1998 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Programs

State/Local Government Eligibility Appears to Exclude Indian Tribes (a)

CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance Eligible to Apply

for Assistance

Local

Govts (b)

State

Govts

Department of the Interior

15.214 Non-Sale Disposals of Mineral

Material (Free Use of Mineral

material for Public Projects)

Sale, Exchange, or Donation of

Property and Goods

X

15.504 Reclamation and Water Reuse

Program

Formula Grants X X

15.602 Conservation Law Enforcement

Training Assistance

Training X

15.614 Coastal Wetlands Planning,

Protection and Restoration Act

Project Grants X

15.615 Cooperative Endangered Species

Conservation Fund

Project Grants X

15.616 Clean Vessel Act Project Grants X

15.617 Wildlife Conservation and

Appreciation

Project Grants X

15.807 Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Program

Project Grants X X

15.808 U.S. Geological Survey–Research

and Data Acquisition

Project Grants X X

15.915 Technical Preservation Services Provision of Specialized Services;

Advisory Services; Dissemination of

Technical Information

X X

15.918 Disposal of Federal Surplus Real

Property for Parks, Recreation, and

Historic Monuments

Use of Property, Facilities, and

Equipment

X X

15.921 Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

Advisory Services X X

15.925 National Maritime Heritage Grants Project Grants X X

15.978 Upper Mississippi River System

Long Term Resource Monitoring

Program

Project Grants X X

Department of Agriculture
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance Eligible to Apply

for Assistance

Local

Govts (b)

State

Govts

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 118

10.025 Plant and Animal Disease, Pest

Control, and Animal Care

Project Grants; Provision of

Specialized Services; Advisory

Services; Dissemination of Technical

Information; Training

X X

10.072 Wetlands Reserve Program Direct Payments for Specified Use X X

10.156 Federal-State Marketing

Improvement Program

Project Grants X

10.202 Cooperative Forestry Research Formula Grants X

10.215 Sustainable Agriculture Research

and Education

Project Grants X

10.217 Higher Education Challenge Grants Project Grants X

10.415 Rural Rental Housing Loans Direct Loans X X

10.420 Rural Self-Help Housing Technical

Assistance

Project Grants X X

10.442 Housing Application Packaging

Grants

Project Grants X X

10.451 Noninsured Crop Disaster

Assistance

Direct Payments with Unrestricted

Use

X

10.452 Disaster Reserve Assistance Direct Payments for Specified Use X

10.558 Child and Adult Care Food

Program

Formula Grants X

10.573 Homeless Children Nutrition

Program

Formula Grants X X

10.574 Team Nutrition Grants Project Grants X

10.652 Forestry Research Project Grants X X

10.670 National Forest - Dependent Rural

Communities

Project Grants; Use of Property,

Facilities, and Equipment; Training

X

10.700 National Agricultural Library Project Grants; Dissemination of

Technical Information

X X

10.772 Empowerment Zones Program Project Grants X X

10.850 Rural Electrification Loans and

Loan Guarantees

Direct Loans X

10.855 Distance Learning and

Telemedicine Loans and Grants

Project Grants; Direct Loans X X
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance Eligible to Apply

for Assistance

Local

Govts (b)

State

Govts

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 119

10.902 Soil and Water Conservation Advisory Services X X

10.910 Rural Abandoned Mine Program Direct Payments for Specified Use;

Advisory Services

X

Department of Commerce

11.004 Census Intergovernmental

Services

Advisory Services; Dissemination

of Technical Information;

Training

X X

11.413 Fishery Products Inspection and

Certification

Provision of Specialized

Services

X X

11.426 Financial Assistance for Ocean

Resources conservation and

Assessment Program

Project Grants X X

11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program Project Grants X

11.473 Coastal Services Center Project Grants X X

11.609 Measurement and Engineering

Research and Standards

Project Grants X X

Department of Defense

12.100 Aquatic Plant Control Provision of Specialized Services;

Dissemination of Technical

Information

X X

12.103 Emergency Operations Flood

Response and Post Flood

Response

Provision of Specialized Services X X

Department of Justice

16.001 Law Enforcement AssistanceNarcotics and Dangerous DrugsLaboratory AnalysisProvision of Specialized Services;

Advisory Services; Dissemination

of Technical Information

X X

16.004 Law Enforcement AssistanceNarcotics and Dangerous Drugs

Training

Training X X

16.108 Americans with Disabilities Act

Technical Assistance Program

Project Grants; Advisory Services;

Dissemination of Technical

Information; Training; Investigation

of Complaints

X X
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance Eligible to Apply

for Assistance

Local

Govts (b)

State

Govts

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 120

16.601 Corrections-Training and Staff

Development

Project Grants; Provision of

Specialized Services; Dissemination

of Technical Information; Training

X X

16.602 Corrections-Research and

Evaluation and Policy Formulation

Project Grants; Provision of

Specialized Services; Dissemination

of Technical Information

X X

16.603 Corrections-Technical

Assistance/Clearinghouse

Project Grants; Provision of

Specialized Services; Dissemination

of Technical Information

X X

16.728 Drug Prevention Program Project Grants X

Department of the Treasury

21.052 Alcohol, Tobacco, and FirearmsTraining AssistanceTraining X X

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

45.024 Promotion of the Arts-Grants to

Organizations and Individuals

Project Grants X X

45.201 Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Insurance X X

Federal Emergency Management Agency

83.100 Flood Insurance Insurance X X

83.536 Flood Mitigation Assistance Formula Grants; Project Grants X X

83.537 Community Disaster Loans Direct Loans X

Department of Health and Human Services

93.003 Public Health and Social Services

Emergency Fund

Project Grants X X

93.118 Acquired Immunodeficiency

Syndrome (AIDS) Activity

Project Grants X X

93.127 Emergency Medical Services for

Children

Project Grants X X

93.136 Injury Prevention and Control

Research and State and Community

Based Programs

Project Grants X X

93.155 Rural Health Research Centers Project Grants X X

93.174 Knowledge Dissemination Grants

(Substance Abuse)

Project Grants X X
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance Eligible to Apply

for Assistance

Local

Govts (b)

State

Govts

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 121

93.178 Nursing Education Opportunities

for Individuals from Disadvantaged

Backgrounds

Project Grants X X

93.217 Family Planning-Services Project Grants X X

93.224 Community Health Centers Project Grants X X

93.235 Abstinence Education Formula Grants X

93.244 Mental health Clinical and AIDS

Service-Related Training Grants

Project Grants X X

93.260 Family Planning-Personnel Training Project Grants X X

93.268 Immunization Grants Project Grants X X

93.571 Community Services Block Grant

Discretionary Awards-Community

Food and Nutrition

Formula Grants; Direct Payments

for Specified Use

X X

93.595 Welfare Reform Research,

Evaluation and National Studies

Project Grants X X

93.670 Child Abuse and Neglect

Discretionary Activities

Project Grants X X

93.901 Communications Programs for

Demonstrating and Prevention of

Alcohol, and Drug Problems

Project Grants X X

93.995 Adolescent Family LifeDemonstration ProjectsProject Grants X X

Corporation for National and

Community Service

94.002 Retired and Senior Volunteer

Program

Project Grants X X

94.004 Lean and Serve America-School

and Community Based Programs

Project Grants X X

94.005 Learn and Serve America-Higher

Education

Project Grants X

94.006 Americorps Project Grants X X

94.007 Planning and Program

Development Grants

Project Grants X X

94.009 Training and Technical Assistance Project Grants X X

94.011 Foster Grandparent Program Project Grants X X
CFDA # Name of Program Type of Assistance Eligible to Apply

for Assistance

Local

Govts (b)

State

Govts

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 122

94.013 Volunteers in Service to America Provision of Specialized Services X X

94.016 Senior Companion Program Project Grants X X

(a) Federally-recognized Indian Tribal Governments include the governing body or a governmental agency of any Indian

Tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community (including any Native village as defined in Section 3 of the

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 85 Stat. 688) certified by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible for the special

programs and services provided by him through the BIA.

(b) Local Governments are defined as county, parish, municipality, city, town, township, village, State-designated Indian

Tribal governments, local public authority, school districts, special districts, intrastate district, council of governments,

sponsor group representative organizations, and other regional or interstate government entity, or any agency or

instrumentality of a local government.
71This program is to support newly acknowledged Tribes. Once a new Tribal government is in place, funds

are redistributed to operating programs, based on the priorities of the Tribal leadership.

72Funds are used to meet Tribes contract support requirements when contracting or compacting new

programs, under the authority of the Indian Self-Determination Act, as amended. Funds are distributed to the

contractor in the first year of a new or expanded contract, on a first-come first-served basis. Contract Support for the

second year and beyond comes from the Contract Support line item, also included within TPA. See table titled

“Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) - Non-Base Funding.”

73This program is a result of a recommendation made by the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Task Force on Bureau of

Indian Affairs reorganization. Minimum funding levels were recommended for the small Tribes that had small

populations and few Federal resources. After initial distribution of funds, Tribes redistribute funds to operating

TPA program(s) based on the priorities of the Tribal leadership.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 123

APPENDIX 3

Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) Standards

TRIBAL GOVERNMENT:

Tribal Government

Other Aid

to Tribal

Governmen

t

$22,209,00

0

New

Tribes71

Indian SelfDeterminat

ion Fund72

Contract

Support

Funds

Small

Tribes73

PalauPopulatio

n 18,000

See NonBase TPA

Funding

Table

Voter Registration/

Council Legislature

Counsel to Advise

Counsel

$17.53 per person - Total Aid to

Tribal Government Budget is

$29,000,000. Total population

1,654,292 [1997 Indian Service

Population and Labor Force Report]

$1,735,200

(Palua

Government

Funding) ÷

18,000

(population) =

$96.47 per

person

$78.94 x

1,260,206

Total

Populatio

n

$130,589,81

0

Community Services General: Program responsibilities are included under Aid to Tribal Government.

Program

Aid to Tribal Government

The goal of this program is to promote Indian Self-Determination by supporting Tribal government

operations. All Tribes have the need to maintain membership information (rolls) for the purposes of

providing Tribal services, according the rights and privileges of Tribal membership, and, where provided
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 124

by Federal statute, certifying off-reservation treaty rights and eligibility for Federal services based upon

American Indian status. Contracting and compacting Tribal entities perform the ministerial responsibilities

of various Federal functions, including establishing voter lists, registering voters, printing ballots, and other

requirements for secretarial elections. They also develop comprehensive policies, legislation and regulations

to benefit Tribal membership, address Tribal needs, and comply with Federal law. As required by Tribal

and Federal law, BIA Tribal operations staff also provide expert technical assistance, review, oversight and

approval of claims settlements, judgement distributions, adoption, revision or amendment of Tribal

constitutions, Tribal governing enactments, attorney contracts, Section 81 contracts with Indians, Tribal

operating budgets, administrative appeals, appeals under the Indian Judgment Act, Tribal revenue

distribution, and assistance to other agencies, congressional offices, and the general public. 

Standard/Problem

The above functions and services are provided to Tribal governments under Other Aid to Tribal

Government to fully support Tribal Self-Determination and the Government-to-Government relationship.

They are based on mandates from Federal treaties, court decisions, executive orders, and legislation.

Many are very unique services and most are not readily comparable to another Federal or state agency.

Due to the wide variety of governmental functions that tribes perform under Other Aid to Tribal

Government funding, based on local need, the sub-group narrowed the activities for this comparison to

voter registration, council legislature, and legal counsel services to council. Our review revealed that it was

virtually impossible to easily isolate similar functions and costs at the local, state or Federal level. After

many attempts to find a larger sample of comparable programs, the U.S. possession Palau, was

selected as an entity that most closely approximated the functions performed by Tribal governments.

The Secretary of the Interior has certain authority and responsibilities with regard to the Republic of Palau.

The Secretary has delegated authority and responsibilities to the Office of Insular Affairs, under the general

supervision of the Assistant Secretary-Policy, Management and Budget.

Palau is located within a group of islands in the North Pacific Ocean, southeast of the Philippines. The area

is slightly more than 2.5 times the size of Washington, D.C. The islands share similar general environmental

concerns with several Tribes in terms of waste disposal, threats to ecosystems, illegal fishing practices, and

over-fishing. The Republic of Palau is somewhat analogous to tribes in the type of constitutional

government or organizational structure. It is an island nation with defined boundaries not unlike most Tribal

reservations. Their legal system is based on Trust Territory laws, actions of the legislature, municipal,

common, and customary laws. The Palau economy consists primarily of subsistence agriculture and fishing.

The government is the major employer of the work force, relying heavily on financial assistance from the

U.S. 

Contract Support Funds: These funds are not included in Tribal recurring base funds and are not subject

to the priority setting process.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 125

HUMAN SERVICES

Human Services

Services to

Children,

Elderly and

Families

$42,298,000

Indian Child

Welfare Act

$14,235,000

Welfare

Assistance

Housing

Improvemen

t Program

State

Temporary

Assistance to

Needy

Families

(TANF)

Child Welfare

League of

America

See Non-Base

TPA Funding

Table

See Non-Base

TPA Funding

Table

Caseload per staff GA for

service only cases requiring

substantial casework or

client counseling at least

once per month

GA or service only, etc,

moderate casework every

two months

GA, etc. minimum

casework every six months

Caseload per staff Under

age 5 no more than 20

active cases per

caseworker.

Over age 5, no more than

15 cases.

No more than 30 adoptive

families per caseworker

Under age 5

30:1 118 BIA

caseworkers x $30,000

avg salary/benefits =

$3,540,000 (Based on

3,540 case)

50:1 160 wkrs x $30K

= $4,800,000 (based on

a caseload of 8,000) 

100:1 160 wkrs x

$30K = $4,800,000 

(based on a caseload of

8,000)

60:1=50 case workers

x $43,000 avg.

Sal./Bene. =

$2,150,000 (based on a

caseload of 3,000)

60:1=50 wkrs x $43K

= $2,150,000

60:1=150 wkrs x $43K

= $6,450,000

15:1 236 wkrs x

$30,000 =

$7,080,000 (Based

on 3,540 case)

25:1 320 wkrs x

$30K= $9,600,000

(based on a

caseload of 8,000)

50:1 320 wkrs x

$30K= $9,600,000

(based on a

caseload of 8,000)

20:1= 150 wkrs x

$43K avg

Sal/Bene.=

$6,450,000 (based

on a caseload of

3,000)

20:1=150 wkrs x

$43K =

$4,450,000

30:1=450 wkrs x

$43K =

$19,350,000

118 wkrs x

$30,000 = 

160 wkrs x

$30K

160 wkrs x

$30K

100 wkrs x

$43K

100 wkrs x

$43K

300 wkrs x

$43K

$3,540,000

$4,800,000

$4,800,000

$4,300,000

$4,300,000

$12,900,00

0

Program

Indian Child Welfare Act

This program supports the goal of ensuring that individual Indians residing on or near reservations who need

assistance, receive aid for basic essential needs such as food, clothing, shelter and other services that

improve the conditions of Tribal members. This program provides the resources to protect Indian children

and prevent the separation of Indian families, as authorized under Public Law 95-606, the Indian Child

Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). BIA and Tribal social services programs are mandated to respond to all

reports of child abuse and neglect in Indian Country. In 1998, there were over 27,000 referrals to the more

than 500 BIA and Tribal programs for child abuse and neglect investigations. Over 40 percent of the

referrals involved some form of substance abuse. 
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 126

Standard/Problem

The number of Indian children at risk is almost three times greater in Indian communities than in the general

population. There is a high correlation between poverty and substance abuse for Indian children at risk.

Caseload and caseworkers were used for illustration purposes and clerical, supervisory staff and other

administrative costs were deleted from the charts. The BIA baseline data is an average caseload of ICWA

cases as compared to the same caseload of high risk child welfare cases in a state program. The BIA’s

average was used to project nationwide totals for comparison. Adoption cases involve considerable

complex research and interaction to complete permanency planning and final placement of children. It is not

unusual for adoptions and related cases where other alternatives are explored and selected over adoptions

to consume substantial effort of caseworkers. The baseline reflects an attempt to accurately measure this

work in quantifiable terms. 

Program

Services to Children, Elderly and Families

The goal of this program is to ensure that individual Indians residing on or near reservations who need

assistance, receive aid for basic essential needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and other services that

improve the conditions of Tribal members. These funds support approximately 950 Tribal and BIA social

services and other human services staff. They coordinate cooperative work efforts and serve on multidisciplinary teams with various departments relative to services to Indian children and families. These funds

help staff develop and provide training material resources on social services to children, elderly, and families.

Standard/Problem 

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) workers in state programs have caseloads which are

almost one-half of the general assistance caseload for tribal and BIA staff. Caseload and caseworkers were

used for illustrative purposes and clerical, supervisory staff and other administrative costs were deleted from

the charts. The BIA baseline data is an average caseload of general assistance cases as compared to the

same caseload of TANF cases in a state program. The BIA’s average was used to project nationwide

totals for comparison purposes.

EDUCATION:

Education
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 127

Johnson

O’Malley

(JOM)

$18,534,000

Higher

Education

Scholarship

$29,495,000

Adult

Education

$2,663,000

Dept. of Educ,

Pub.L. 103-382

Impact Aid

Program Title IX

Pell Grant, Work

Study, Student

Loan Programs.,

Dept. Of Educ,

P.L. 103-227: Sec.

102B

State Voc. Tech

Institutes Local

Community

Colleges

Amount of

Annual

Funding per

student

Average

amount of

annual

education

grant per

student

Amount of

annual funding

per student

$85.11 per student - Based

on current JOM service

population of 272,000

students

$1,900 per student - Based

on 15,500 students served

28,000 unfunded students

$133 per student - Based on

20,000 students served

$129.00 per

student

$3,000 per

student

$3,000

unfunded need

$200 per

student

$30.00 x

272,000

students

15,500 x

$1,100 students

$3,000 ×

28,000

unfunded

students

$67.00 x

20,000 students

$11,968,00

0

$17,050,00

0

$84,000,00

0

$1,340,000

Program

Johnson O’Malley Program

The program provides Federal dollars to the school districts because of the additional financial burden the

students place on the schools they attend. The JOM program is focused on facilitating the entrance of Indian

children into public school systems and providing supportive services, such as computer skills training, to

help students be successful. 

Standard/Problem 

The standard used in comparing the JOM program is dollars per Indian student provided to schools by the

US Department of Education under the Title IX program, the Impact Aid program. This program provides

school districts affected by Federal activities with funds for general operating expenses. One example is for

native students residing on non-taxable reservation lands within a school district. 

Program

Higher Education Scholarships

This program supports the mission goal of providing quality education opportunities from early childhood

through life in accordance with Tribal needs. Grants are awarded by existing Tribally contracted programs

to provide financial aid to eligible Indian and Alaska Native students attending accredited post-secondary

institutions.

Standard/Problem

According to a study released in October 1998, (National Center for Education Statistics for the

Department of Education entitled “American Indians and Alaska Natives in Postsecondary Education”,

NCES-98-291, reported that for the 1992-93 school year) 62 percent of American Indian and Alaska

Native students needed financial aid. According to this study, only 55 percent of the students who needed

financial assistance received some type of Federal aid. They further reported that 54 percent of American

Indian and Alaska Natives students had financial needs even after receiving the full financial aid package.

This report included all types of financial aid: grants, loans and work-study. Based upon the data contained

in this report, for the 1992-93 school year American Indian and Alaska Natives had a total unmet financial

need of $232,441,700. Converted to 1998 dollars that need would be $270,800,000. This conversion
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 128

does not take into account any increase in the student population and, therefore is a very conservative

estimate.

The data from the BIA 1997-98 Higher Education Scholarship program is still incomplete but information

representing approximately 1/3 of the funding has been compiled. This data shows that the BIA program

provides an average scholarship of $1900, which was 30 percent of the total aid the students received. The

data also indicated that only 56 percent of the people that requested assistance actually received a

scholarship. Extrapolating from these numbers indicates that over 28,000 requests go unfunded. 

Program

Adult Education

The Adult Education program provides opportunities for adult Indians and Alaskan Natives to complete the

General Equivalency Diploma (GED), thereby increasing their economic competitiveness and reducing their

economic dependence on Federal welfare programs. Indians participate in adult basic and community

education and development courses to upgrade skills and abilities to match job placements, contributing to

a stronger local economy.

Standard/Problem

The standard used in comparing the adult education programs is dollars spent per student by the state of

Utah. Their program appears to provide many of the same services that Tribes provide under the adult

education funding. The services provided under the Utah program include GED instruction and testing,

lifelong learning programs and English as a second language.

PUBLIC SAFELY AND JUSTICE:

Public Safety and Justice
74This program is not included in the analysis of TPA funds because in FY 1999 the Congress moved the

program from TPA to Special Programs and Polled Overhead activity within the Operation of Indian Programs

account.

75This is a limited program administered only by a few Tribes. In subsequent data collection, this program

will be included for analysis.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 129

Tribal Courts

$11,846,000

Law

Enforcement74

Community

Fire

Protection75

New Mexico

County

Metropolitan

Courts

Nebraska County

Courts

Washington

District Courts

Average Salary

of Judges

Average

amount of

funding

$32,000/year per judge

158 Tribes receive a total of

$6,582,772. With an average

of $41,663 per Tribe

$90,154/year

per judge

158 State Courts

receive a total of

23.9 million 

with an average

of $151,265 per

State court

$32,000

salary -

$90,154

salary

$6,582,772

per Tribe

minus

$23.9

million per

State

$58,154

$17,317,22

8 

Program

Tribal Courts

The goal of this program is to promote Indian Self-Determination and strengthen Tribal governing systems.

Although limited funding has delayed the development of Tribal justice systems by many Tribes and new

Federal initiatives (welfare reform and community policing) have increased the demands on Tribal justice

systems that underwrite services far in excess of available resources more than 250 Tribal justice systems

and Courts of Indian Offenses are supported by BIA funds.

Standard/Problem

Throughout the past several decades, a number of attempts have been made by nationally recognized

organizations to compare Tribal courts and state courts. These attempts have been made along the lines of

number of cases heard, types of cases heard, service population, proximity to major centers of population,

geographic location, salaries and support staff, to name a few of the comparative factors that have been

sought. The most interesting outcome of these attempted comparisons is the final conclusion: comparing

Tribal courts to state courts is like comparing apples to oranges. Although some Tribal courts may look and

act like state courts in some respects, there really is no clear comparison which can take place between the

two entities. Tribal courts can range from traditional oral courts as seen in the Pueblos of New Mexico

which handle internal, social issues involving custom and tradition and which serve a population of 200

members, to the Cherokee Nation courts of Oklahoma which serve a population of 50,000 Tribal members

and which resemble the typical Anglo-American courts that most Americans are familiar with. There are

also Alaskan Native villages that have their own traditional forum for resolving issues affecting Tribal

members but at the same time must submit to state civil and criminal jurisdiction because of Federal law

considerations (P.L. 83-280). As a result of other Federal legislation, some Tribal courts are exercising

jurisdiction over a particular type of case but must submit all other civil cases to state court jurisdiction
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 130

(Indian Child Welfare Act). The courts of limited jurisdiction in New Mexico, Washington and

Nebraska were selected because the size of these courts most closely corresponds to Tribal courts.

The number of types of cases handled by these state courts of limited jurisdiction sort of correspond to

Tribal courts with this important distinction. Tribal courts are limited in the type of case they handle only in

the area of criminal law. Pursuant to Federal statutes (contained in Title 18 of the United States Code) and

the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the Oliphant and Duro cases, Tribal courts do not have

the authority to hear cases in which non-Indians have been charged with criminal offenses against the Tribe

and cannot entertain cases of a certain type or degree even if committed by a Tribal member against another

Tribal member within their own reservation (see 18 U.S.C.A. sec. 1153).

There are also some Tribes which have land bases in two or more states which causes significant

jurisdictional problems and confusion amongst court personnel, law enforcement officers and the general

public. Fort Mojave is a prime example of this with land holdings in the states of California, Arizona and

Nevada. To complicate matters further, California is a PL-280 state exercising criminal and civil

jurisdictions over Tribal members who commit offenses within that portion of Tribal lands located within the

state of California. Nevada was also a PL-280 state until the 1970s when jurisdiction was retroceded back

to the Tribes. The issue of gaming further complicates this one example because of the recent battle over

Tribal gaming operations on Indian land as evidenced by the Proposition 5 referendum voted on last year

by all eligible voters of California and although the Fort Mojave reservation straddles three states, the total

membership is just over 1,000 members.

Tribal courts also entertain civil lawsuits brought by non-Indians within their jurisdiction if their claim arose

within the reservation boundaries or if a Tribal member or Tribal interest is involved. Yet Tribal courts do

not enjoy the same ability to hear and dispose of criminal matters when a non-Indian is involved in criminal

behavior within Indian Country. These two opposing philosophies often do not make sense to all the parties

involved, but it is a legal reality that binds Tribal courts.

At this time there are 554 Federally recognized Indian Tribes. Each one of these Tribes to some degree

maintains a method of maintaining social order within their respective Tribes. Whether it is by a Tribal court,

CFR court or traditional peacemaking forum is determined by the Tribal government in its capacity as a

sovereign. Although there is a current move to make certain subject matter more uniform in its application

by Tribal courts (i.e. child support, custody and child welfare issues), the manner in which a particular Tribal

court decides to engage in the adjudicatory process depends on the Tribe itself. How any two Tribes

determine, for example, who pays child support and in what amount may vary greatly.

The BIA is currently engaged in exploring partnerships with other Federal agencies because of the meager

amount of funding currently available to Tribal justice systems through BIA. Under the President’s crime

bill and law enforcement initiative, $5 million was appropriated to DOJ to assist Tribal judicial systems.

These funds, although welcome by Tribal justice systems, will not be sufficient for the extended and

comprehensive funding that will help Tribal courts achieve the continuity and legitimacy they are striving.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 131

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Community Development

Adult

Vocational

Training and

Direct

Employment

Program

$10,859,000

Economic

Developmen

t/ Loan

Guarantee

$16,030,000

Road

Maintenance

JTPA, Title IV A,

Dept. Of

Labor/Welfare Reform

(TANF), HHS/State

and municipal

programs/Dept Of

Education

Commercial Banks

See Non-Base TPA Funding

Table

Funding, costs per

participant, positive

termination rates,

services provided

Loans Processed

(applications)

Loans Serviced

Technical Assistance

$2,621 per

student

$12,000 per

application

$1,914 per loan

$635 per inquiry

$3,800 per

student

$12,950 per

application

$7,000 per loan

$850 per inquiry

3,738

students x

$1,179

$950 per

application x

60

applicants

$5,086 per

loan x 752

loans

$215 per

T/A x 850

inquiries

$4,407,10

2

$57,000

$3,824,67

2

$182,750

Program

Adult Vocational Training and Direct Employment Program

The purpose of the Adult Vocational Training Program is to assist Indian individuals acquire job skills

necessary for full-time unsubsidized employment. Within that framework, the program provides testing,

vocational counseling and /or guidance to assist program participants with career choices relating personal

assets to training options and availability of jobs in the labor market. The program provides for full-time

institutional training in any Federal or State accredited vocational or trade school, apprenticeship and on-thejob training for periods not to exceed 24 months in length, with the exception that Registered Nurse training

may be for periods not to exceed thirty-six months.

The end result is to increase occupational skills attainment and earnings of participants through employment.

Reduce welfare dependency and enhance the productivity and competitiveness for the Indian people.

Standard/Problem

When determining the standard to use to compare with AVT we must consider Welfare Reform. The

comparable programs were JTPA, Title IV A, Department of Labor/Welfare Reform, HHS/State and

municipal programs and the Department of Education.

Program

Economic Development/Loan Guarantee Program

The program attempts to provide Tribes with the resources necessary to develop a self-sustaining economic

base. Agency staff are the first to review and recommend approval/disapproval for loan guarantee requests.
76Natural Resources, General, and Other Resources Management (Tribal Design): These funds ($4,015,000)

are used for: (1) costs of personnel services for Natural Resources Officer or similar positions responsible for various

natural resource programs such as forestry, agriculture, water resources, wildlife and parks and minerals and mining;

(2) P.L. 93-638 contracts with Tribes; and (3) other resource management programs specifically designed by Tribes to

meet their needs (information on use of these funds was determined through random sampling of BIA Agencies.) 

Since programs as described above are not operated by other Federal, State or local governments, the TPA funding

for Natural Resources General and Other Resources Management (Tribal Design), for the purpose of this report, are

consolidated with other TPA Resources Management Programs: Agriculture ($1,526,000); Forestry ($1,646,000);

Water Resources ($281,000); Wildlife and Parks ($402,000); and Minerals and Mining ($161,000).

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 132

Agency duties primarily focus on promoting the loan program and providing technical assistance to

borrowers, including review of loan applicant’s eligibility and adherence to program requirements.

Standard/Problem 

Administrative resources for managing the Indian Loan Guarantee program are completely insufficient for

proper program oversight and management. The primary functions of the Area Credit staff are: 1) provision

of technical assistance and responding to inquiries, regarding the program; 2) processing loan applications;

3) loan servicing; and 4) processing trust mortgages.

All BIA Area Offices lack sufficient staff and administrative resources to provide proper technical assistance

to applicants. As a result, new applications for the Indian Loan Guarantee program oftentimes lack sufficient

information upon which to make an affirmative decision and many potential Indian businesses never have the

opportunity to receive the necessary start-up capital. Many more never even begin the application process

because they lack the “know-how” to prepare an adequate business plan. Existing loans do not receive the

level of servicing and attention they should and, therefore, the BIA experiences a default rate four to five times

higher than private sector statistics. In most cases, these defaults could have been avoided and an Indian

business saved with the provision of some technical assistance to borrowers who encounter difficult financial

conditions for which they were unprepared.

Furthermore, once a loan has been foreclosed on, the BIA does not have sufficient resources to recover the

government’s investment in an aggressive manner. Issues of bankruptcy, probate, etc. complicate many

loans. By not having proper resources to pursue collateral, the Federal government oftentimes takes a greater

loss than it should have. Staff resources for managing a guarantee program with the lending authority and

existing portfolio should be more than 100 percent higher than current funding levels. 

RESOURCEMANAGEMENT:

Resource Management

Natural

Resources,

General76
77The 1990 Analysis was conducted on a state by state basis (24 states were involved) where land

management activities were of a similar nature. There were over 15,000 positions in 22 different series that were

included in the survey. The Soil and Range Conservationists were selected in the final analysis due to the

commonalities of the work performed. The overall grade used in conversion of FTE to dollars was GS 10; the average

grade in the analysis. The dollars listed above deals only with FTE and does not reflect any support costs

associated with the position.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 133

Resource Management (Continued)

Agricultural/

Range

$21,208,000

Natural Resource

Conser-vation

Service

Bureau of

Land

Management 

Ratio of professional soil

conser-vationists

per acre of land

managed

Ratio of professional range conservationists per

acre of land

managed.

1 professional soil conservationist per

459,000 acres of

agricultural land

managed.

1 professional range

conservationist per

577,000 acres of range

land managed.

1 professional soil

con-servationist per

17,000 acres of

agricultural land

managed.

1 professional range

conservationist per

322,000 acres of

range land managed.

1990 Position

and Land

Analysis

Survey77

62 Soil

Conservationist

s

3,100,000

77 Range

Conservationist

s

3,850,000

Forestry

$22,580,000

U.S. Forest

Service

(USDA)

Timber production costs per

commercial

forest acres

Backlog of

main-tenance of

forest access

roads (to meet

USDA road

standards

$7.18 per acre

$0 per mile

$16.25 per acre

$30,000 per mile

5,754,569 acres

x $9.07

8,000 miles of

forest access

roads x $30,000

52,193,940

240,000,000
78

“Adjusted” means the subtraction of $2,281,000 which is currently prioritized for BIA performance of

water-related rights protection services. All Tribes have an interest in some aspect of water resources management

as a trust and cultural resource. “To staff a water resources program assumes that a Tribe would do one of two

things; a) combine water resources funds with other natural resources program resources and accomplish threshold

management capability; or b) join in a consortium of Tribes with their hydrologic area (basins, sub-basins or

watersheds) and under such an arrangement achieve greater management efficiency through the economy of

operational scale. Mni Sose is not subtracted from the formula because its members would likely to fund its

operation from within an appropriately funded TPA water resources program.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 134

Water

Resources78

$6,346,000

Mni Sose

Tribal Water

Rights

Consortium

Intertribal resources management

consortium,

w/staff of 3 and

non-TPA BIA

funded budget,

$315,000,

servic-ing a

membership of 

27 Tribes.

An equal distribution of

FY 1998 adjusted

enacted TPA appropriations of

$4,065,000 would

afford each Tribe a

total of $7,298 to staff

a water resource

program.

Mni Sose’s operating

cost ratio of

$11,667:1 member

Tribe. 

($315,000/27 =

$11,667)

The difference

in funding

between Mni

Sose’s per

member Tribe

cost ($11,667)

& TPA’s per

Tribe amount of

$7,298 = $4,369

times 557

Tribes.

19,087,941
79The $.09/acre expenditure on Indian land covers all fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation management

activities, including habitat and population management, hunting and fishing regulation and enforcement, etc.

80The expenditures for the Forest Service and BLM focus on habitat management because the states have

responsibilities for population management and hunting/fishing control, whereas the expenditures for National

Wildlife Refuge lands include all aspects of resource management.

81The $.90/acre expenditure was derived by averaging the FWS, USFS and BLM values. In addition to the

$5 million currently budgeted in TPA for fish and wildlife, there is also approximately $6 million budgeted for

continuing on-reservation fish and wildlife programs in Other Recurring Programs (most of Wetlands Management,

most of Fish Hatchery Operations and Maintenance, all of Bison Management, and 31 individual Tribal programs),

and approximately $2 million for on-reservation fish and wildlife programs in Self-Governance compacts. Therefore,

the overall need reflects a reduction of $13 million from the calculated $49.5 million level.

82BIA oversee about 6 times the acreage of comparable agencies. There are currently 3 geo-science

professionals working at Areas/Agencies. Therefore the need is calculated by multiplying 3 staff times 6 times

$79,500 (GS-12/4 plus EBC and travel) = $1,471,000. This calculation excludes the Osage Agency due to their unique

status as explained in the narrative.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 135

Resource Management (Continued)

Wildlife and

Parks

$5,400,000

U.S. Fish &

Wildlife

Service,

National

Refuge System

U.S. Forest

Service

Bureau of

Land

Management

$ per acre

$ per acre

$ per acre

$.09/acre for all fish &

wildlife management

activities of 55 million

acres79

Same as above

Same as above

$2.09/acre for FWR

& and public use

activities

$.51/acre for habitat

work only80

$.11/acre for habitat

work only

$.90

average/acre

times 55 million

acres = $49.5M

less $5M in current TPA funds,

$6M in current

ORP funds, and

est $2M in S-G

compacts81

36,500,000

Minerals and

Mining82

$2,345,000

Bureau of

Land

Management;

Minerals

Management

Service; U.S

Forest Service

Mineral

acres/total

mineral &

petroleum staff

6,155,000 ac/staff 1,020,000 ac/staff 6 X 3 X $79,500 About 30-40

Tribes are/or

have the

poten-tial to be

heavily

involved w/oil,

gas/coal or

other minerals

which results in

a shortfall of

18 FTE.

1,471,000

Program

Agriculture

This program supports the goal of assisting American Indian and Alaskan Native in developing conservation

and management plans to protect and preserve their natural resources on Trust land and shared off-reservation

resources.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 136

Standard/Problem

In 1990, BIA prepared a position and staffing analysis which in part compared the ratio of resource staff per

acre of Indian trust land administered. This ratio was compared to that of United State Department of

Agriculture (USDA) and other agencies under like-management conditions. The outcome revealed that in

1990 the BIA would have had to more than double its resources staff to be on the same par as the other

agencies in 1990. The average grade was GS-10 for professionals and GS-7 for technicians. Taking into

account the reductions in staffing, the differences in human resources is much greater than in 1990.

Program

Forestry - TimberProduction

Forest management activities consist of forest inventory and management planning systems including the

development of Integrated Resource Management Plans, forest products marketing, timber sale management,

forest protections, woodland management, forest productivity enhancement, and intensive forest development

procedures.

Standard/Problem

The TPA portion ($20,243,000) of the Indian Forestry Program is the base program funding, which accounts

for 84 percent (307) of the FTE in the program. These staff are involved in all aspects of the forestry program

(forest development, forest management inventories and plans, woodland management, forest program

management, and forest protection) in addition to timber production activities. The remaining 16 percent (59)

of the FTE are funded from the Forestry non-recurring programs portion ($15,699,000) of the Indian Forestry

Program. These staff are directly involved in the planning and supervision of specific forest management

projects. The distribution of the non-recurring funds are competitive and project based. The majority of the

non-recurring funds are used for on the ground activities such as tree planting (purchasing seedlings, hiring

planting crews), pre-commercial thinning (hiring contractors), forest inventories (buying aerial photographs,

hiring crews), forest management planning (environmental studies, public involvement), woodland projects (not

on commercial forest land), ecosystem restoration (fish and riparian habitat improvement), and timber harvest

initiative (additional timber production in the northwest). Ecosystem restoration and the timber harvest initiative

are part of the President’s Forest Plan for the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. 

The funding level shown for the US Forest Service (USFS) is for timber production activities only and does

not include other USFS mission activities (i.e., general administration, recreation etc.). The funding level

comparison was conducted by an independent team of experts and published in the report, “An Assessment

of Indian Forests and Forest Management in the United States” dated November, 1993. Not all of timber

the revenue generated by USFS goes into the U.S. Treasury. In 1997, only 37 percent of the timber revenue

was deposited in Treasure. Approximately 25 percent of the revenue is given to local governments for in-lieuof taxes payments. The remainder is deposited into accounts that are available to the USFS to reinvest in the

resource for the following types of activities: tree planting, brush disposal, and timber salvage sales. These

accounts are not unlike the forest management deductions that the BIA collects from Indian timber revenues.

Based on our latest analysis (FY 1996), Federal appropriations only account for less than 60 percent of the
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 137

total expenditures for Indian forest management. The Tribes contribute the rest.

Forest Roads:

Standard/Problem

The forest access roads that are not in the BIA road system and are therefore not eligible for funding from

Highway Trust Funds or other BIA road maintenance funds. Funds would be for remedial actions to meet

the USFS road standards. To maintain these roads, to those standards, the Indian Forestry Program would

have to be funded for road maintenance at the same level as the Forest Service.

Program

WaterResources

The Water Resources program is intended to support the cost of a Tribal staff managing water resources. The

term “management” means inventorying the quantity and quality of surface and ground water, as well as

planning for the development and use of those water supplies.

Standard/Problem

Mni Sose is a voluntary consortium of Tribes focusing on the management of Tribal water resources in the

Missouri Basin. It is modeled after the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Mni Sose is funded

by BIA in part in FY 1999 from non-recurring Water Resources Management, Planning and Pre-Development

funds at a level of $200,000.

Mni Sose has shown that a consortium of Tribes using Federal dollars can collectively perform water

resources management functions, with the potential of achieving sophisticated levels of management expertise.

It is important to note that Mni Sose is only in its fifth year of operation and its capabilities are currently limited

to information gathering and the coordination communications among member Tribes, using a threshold staff

of three persons. Despite its current limitations, Mni Sose is recognized by the Department of the Interior and

other Federal agencies as performing threshold management functions for member Tribes.

The analysis exhibited in the table assumes that other Tribes like those in the Missouri Basin would choose to

form consortia in their hydrologic areas and engage in management activities from within those consortia. Only

if other Tribes choose to form consortia would the economy of scale demonstrated by Mni Sose be achieved.

Conversely, if Tribes do not choose to form consortia, there would probably be no efficiency in several Tribes

operating on $11,677 per Tribe.

In the case of individual Tribes working alone, they typically use such funds to offset the salary cost of a

generalist in natural resources who in turn seeks out other sources of funding to finance water resources

project work. Under such circumstances, individual Tribes have a very difficult time developing specific

management knowledge and expertise.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 138

Program

Wildlife and Parks/Fisheries Management

This program relates to the long-term goal of successfully supporting the prudent management of natural

resources on Indian lands by providing assistance to Tribal needs and efforts in the areas of fisheries

management, wildlife management, outdoor recreation management, public use management, conservation

enforcement and related fields.

Standard/Problem

The standard used in comparing the Indian fish and wildlife resource program conducted through the TPA

budget category is dollars expended per acre compared to dollars expended per acre by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (for the National Refuge System), the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM). The Fish and Wildlife Service expends $2.09 per acre on the refuge system which

includes all fish and wildlife population work, habitat and public use management and other activities, while

the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management expend $0.51 and $0.11, respectively, primarily for

habitat work, since the states retain management authority over related fish and wildlife populations. Only

$0.09 per acre of TPA funds are spent on fish and wildlife management on Indian lands, even though Tribes

are responsible for all aspects of population, habitat and public use management on their reservations. Without

information from more than 150 Tribes on their respective needs, it is difficult to estimate an overall unmet

need. However, a conservative estimate of average expenditure of $0.90 per acre of Tribal land would

provide Tribes with a much more reasonable base to administer fish, wildlife and related outdoor recreation

resource management programs on Indian reservations.

Program

Minerals and Mining

The program supports geo-technical staff involved in Tribal mineral resource activities. It encourages Tribes

and individual Indians to protect and preserve their natural resources by managing their use in accordance with

integrated resource management. Some activities include: feasibility studies and mining plans, exploration and

development; environmental reviews involving assessments and impact statements; mineral resources; oil and

gas inspection, enforcement, and site security.

Standard/Problem

The distribution of TPA funds and staffing supported by that funding, as shown below, is totally inadequate

in all areas of the BIA’s jurisdiction, except at the Osage Agency in Oklahoma. There are only three

geoscientists, one each for the Albuquerque, Phoenix and Portland Area Offices, while all of the remaining

positions are realty specialists. The BIA does not have a comprehensive national program, staffed with

qualified minerals scientists, to address the critical aspects of energy and minerals development on Indian lands.

A recent review by BIA’s Energy and Minerals Office in Lakewood, Colorado, revealed that for each

geoscientist in the BIA there are 6,155,600 acres of trust Indian lands. This compares to 1,020,000 acres of

Federal land per geoscientist administered by the BLM. Comparatively, the BIA oversees about six times

the number of acres per staff member than BLM staff.

BIA cannot meet its trust responsibility to the Indian mineral owners with present staffing levels for

geoscientists, except at Osage. The Lakewood Office review determined that, at a minimum, about 20 new

positions must be added to address the multitude of critical issues related to energy and minerals development

which presently are not being adequately addressed. The following Area Office summaries detail how the TPA
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 139

funds are utilized for management of Indian mineral resources and shows how thinly stretched the geoscience

personnel are in almost all the areas except for Osage:

Muskogee Area $1,427,000. This funding goes to the Osage Agency to fund the Branch of Minerals. This

Branch is made up of the Engineering Section, Lease Management Section, Field Section, and Minerals

Accounting Section as follows:

Navajo Area $345,000. This amount funds three positions at the Window Rock portion of the Area

Office and three positions at Farmington Indian Minerals Office (FIMO). The FIMO is a pilot office funded

by the BIA, BLM, and MMS. These positions are realty personnel, except for the FIMO office director who

has a degree in minerals economics.

Phoenix Area $166,000. This funding is divided into $67,000 for part of the Realty Branch at the Area

Office, $92,000 for the Petroleum Engineers office at the U&O Agency, and $7,000 for the Pyramid Lake

Tribe. There are currently more than 750 oil and gas wells producing at the U&O reservation and they expect

between 160 and 400 new wells will be drilled within the next four years. The Pyramid Lake Tribe retains

temporary geoscience expertise on an as “needed basis,” and presently do not have development or

production activities on their lands.

Portland Area $77,000. This funding is used at the Spokane Agency. To support one geologist position,

which provides oversight on reclamation of defunct uranium mining activities on the Spokane Indian

reservation.

Anadarko Area $63,000. This funding is used to cover realty specialist positions to provide technical

assistance to the Agencies and Self Governance Tribes regarding oil and gas development and production as

well as the Royalty Distribution and Reporting System. 

Albuquerque Area $59,000. This funding is divided to provide $40,000 to the Area Office Petroleum

Engineer who covers all the reservations producing oil and gas in the San Juan Basin area in New Mexico,

and $19,000 to the Laguna Agency. The Area Office Engineer oversees 2,200 producing oil and gas wells

on the Jicarilla reservation, 2,000 oil and gas wells on the Southern Ute reservation and 125 oil and gas wells

on the Ute Mountain Ute reservation. The Laguna Pueblo had the largest uranium mine in the U.S. on their

lands. The funding at Laguna is used for oversight responsibilities associated with reclamation of the uranium

mine.

AberdeenArea $27,000. This funding is used by the Realty Office, at the Ft. Berthold Agency, in North

Dakota for administration of oil and gas development and production on the Ft. Berthold reservation.
83114,000 surface leases x 4-6 hours processing time ($19.74 x 6 = $18.44 per lease)

84500 sub-surface leases x 6-8 hours processing time ($19.74 x 8 = $157.92 per lease)

853,000 rights-of-way x 2-4 hours processing time ($19.74 x 4 = $78.96 per right-of-way)

867,400 land acquisitions x 3-4 hours processing time ($19.74 x 4 = $78.96 per land acquisition)

87 7,500 land sales x 3-4 hours processing time ($19.74 x 4 = $78.96 per land sale)

8827,000 appraisals @ GS-12 = $59,540 per year / 26 pay periods = $2,290 per pay period / 80 hours = $28.62

per hour x 16 hours processing time = $457.92 per appraisal.

Processing times are estimates based on knowledge of personnel at the Central Office.

89The FY 1998 TPA funding for approximately 13 FTE specifically identified with the Environmental Quality

Services Program is $1,147,000. The staff are responsible for collecting information, preparing documents, and

providing technical assistance to agency managers in environmental and cultural resource laws. Staff in other BIA

programs are also responsible for performing similar functions in order to comply with environmental and cultural

resources laws but the BIA does not maintain records to determine actual costs associated with this bureauwide

responsibility. Since the Environmental Quality Services Program supports other TPA programs, for the purposes of

this report, the funds for Environmental Quality Services are consolidated with the following programs: Road

Maintenance ($57,000); Real Estate Services ($803,000); Forestry ($172,000); and Minerals and Mining ($115,000).

90For Alaska Tribes only.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 140

TRUST SERVICES:

Trust Services

Trust

Other Rights

Realty/

Appraisals

$21,875,000

N/A $ amount for a GS-9/1 to complete a

transaction

GS-9 Salary = $41,060 per year / 26 pay

periods = $1,579.23 per pay period = 80

hours.

$1,579.23 / 80 hours = $19.74 per hour.

$19.74 x # of hours to complete

transaction.

# of Transactions

completed in one year

14,000 surface leases

500 sub-surface leases

3,000 rights-of-way

7,400 land acquisitions

7,500 sales

27,000 appraisals

N/A Pending/Backlog

10,000 surface

leases83

500 sub-surface84

5,700 probate

2,700 rights-of-way85

11,200 land

acquisitions86

12,500 sales87

40,000 appraisals88

1,184,400

78,960

4,965,000

213,192

884,352

987,000

18,316,80

0

Environmenta

l Quality

Services89

ANILCA90

$1,506,000
91For Alaska Tribes only.

Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 141

ANSCA Historical & Cemetery Sites91

$606,000

Program

Realty/Appraisal

The goal of this program is to ensure the BIA’s trust responsibility is fulfilled by assuring that Indian Tribes and

individuals receive fair market value from real estate transactions which include, but are not limited to:

acquisitions, disposal, leasing (surface and sub-surface), land use planning, rights-of-ways, exchanges,

partitions, permits, and easements.

Standard/Problem

Due to the fiduciary responsibility to individual Indians and Tribes, BIA realty/appraisal programs cannot be

compared to any other Federal agency. The BIA realty/appraisal programs have responsibility for the

management and administration of Indian trust/restricted lands owned by approximately 300,000 individual

Indians and 335 Indian Tribes within the continental United States and 220 Alaska Native groups. The BIA

has thousands of landowners compared to BLM’s one owner, the United States. The BLM may have a larger

number of acres to manage. However, because of the ownership, BIA’s transactions require a more complex

processing and additional time to complete comparison of the BIA agencies and BLM’s field offices at other

Federal, state and local governments was not performed for the following reasons: (1) Consent - BIA is

required to obtain numerous landowner consents in order to effect land transactions, i.e., acquisitions, sales,

leases, disposals, right-of-ways, permits, exchanges, patents in fee, land use planning and counseling, etc.,

whereas other Federal and state agencies deal with one owner (U.S. government or state government); (2)

Probate - BIA is required to probate deceased landowners estates and provide estate planning, whereas other

Federal and state agencies are not; (3) Statutes/Regulations - BIA must incorporate statutes, regulations and

court decisions that address the rights of Indian Tribes and individual Indian owners in the management of their

lands which do not exist with other Federal and state governments; (4) Trust Responsibility/Accountability -

BIA is the primary agency of the Federal Government charged with the responsibility to administer Federal

Indian policy and to discharge the Federal trust responsibility to protect and preserve trust/restricted lands and

trust resources for American Indian Tribes, Alaska Native groups and Tribal organizations.

Program

Environmental Quality Services

The TPA Environmental Quality Services program is responsible for collecting information, preparing

documents, and providing technical assistance to agency managers in environmental and cultural resource laws,

such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the

Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and the Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). 
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 142

Standard/Problem

It is difficult to determine the unmet need in the program for several reasons. First, the FY 1999 TPA funding

for this program is $1,141,000.00, which supports approximately 13 FTEs at the Area or Agency level

specifically identified with the Environmental Quality Services program. The BIA’s Central Office

Environmental (Waste) Management budget, however, provides funding for some of this program as well,

perhaps eight of the 12 Environmental Scientist FTEs funded through the Central Office spend some amount

of time working on NEPA issues (perhaps $440,000 of the Central Office dollars expended for Environmental

Scientist salaries is allocated to work on NEPA projects). 

Second, staff in other BIA programs are also responsible for performing similar functions in order to comply

with environmental and cultural resource laws. For example, staff in the roads or forestry departments at a

BIA Area Office or Agency may have NEPA or cultural resources responsibilities for the projects of that

department. The BIA, however, does not maintain records to determine actual costs associated with this

bureauwide responsibility.

Third, the BIA does not keep centralized records on the number of projects that it performs, or needs to

perform, under the statutes listed above. Therefore, it cannot easily analyze what staffing needs are required

to perform those projects.

Nonetheless, it is clear that even with staff positions funded from both the TPA and the BIA’s Central Office

accounts, the BIA does not meet the need for environmental and cultural resources protection. A 1995 BIA

study indicates that the BIA’s average annual need for NEPA, ARPA, NHPA, and NAGPRA totaled

$15,050,000. The total TPA and Central Office expenditures for this purpose is $1,581,000, leaving an

unfunded difference of $13,469,000 (for the statutes listed above only; the unmet need for compliance with

pollution control statutes is not addressed here, but is much larger).

Reports that are available from BIA Areas confirm the general scope of the unmet need:

The Minneapolis Area reports that they perform approximately 100 Environmental Assessments each year,

and that the four Agencies in the Area perform, or should perform, a total of approximately 750 Environmental

Assessments. Yet only one of these Agencies has an environmental protection specialist on staff. In addition,

the Area issues about 180 categorical exclusions under NEPA each year, and review hundreds of NEPA

documents prepared by other Agencies for projects that might effect trust resources.

The Aberdeen Area provides extensive guidance on up to five Environmental Assessments and one

Environmental Impact Statement each year and review five EIAs and up to 10 EAs prepared by other entities

each year. There are 10 to 50 projects completed each year in the Area with no or inadequate NEPA

compliance. Yet the Area does not have a full-time NEPA coordinator.

The Phoenix Area processes several hundred NEPA documents a year and has one person working on

NEPA issues. The Area Archeologist processes 900 projects a year under NHPA and ARPA, and estimates

that only 25 percent of what the BIA should be doing to comply with those statutes.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 143

Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) - NON-BASE FUNDING

TPA Budget

Category

Program Method of Distribution FY 1998

Appropriation

Total

Requiremen

t

Preliminary

Need and

Unfunded

Program

Amounts

Tribal

Government

Human

Services

Community

Development

Contract

Support

Funds (CSF)

Welfare

Assistance

Housing

Improvemen

t Program

(HIP)

Road

Maintenance

CSF are distributed to Tribal contractors based on

Indirect Costs rates Tribes negotiate with the Office

of the Inspector General. Also, if a Tribe is small

and does not have the administrative capability,

Area Office Contracting Officers will negotiate a

reasonable lump sum amount. Because

appropriations have been insufficient to meet

identified need, the BIA has distributed based on pro

rata share to ensure that all Tribal contractors

receive the same level of funding.

Welfare Assistance funds are distributed to Tribes

and BIA agencies based on reported need. While

the population in Indian Country has increased over

the last few years, funding has remained at the same

level. The Tribes and BIA have prioritized the use

of avail-able funds in order to stay within

appropriated levels. If funds are insufficient to

meet need, the BIA distri-butes based on pro rata

share to ensure that all Tribes and Agencies receive

the same level of funding.

HIP funds are distributed to Tribes and BIA agencies

based on eligible HIP applicants. Funds are

distributed to complete at least one project. There

are currently 30, 179 HIP eligible Indian families.

Road Maintenance funds are distributed to the Areas

based on the summarized needs of their Tribes and

agencies. The Areas receive funds based on the

need shown for itemized program activities that

have applied weight percentage factors and are

dependent upon appropriations. Certain critical

program activities are 100% funded. To stay

within appropriated levels other program activities

are funded at percentages much lower than that

needed.

The Total Requirement = BIA system miles x cost

per mile (1995 state avg.) $100,075,000 = 25,000

miles x $4,003/mile

$105,829,000

$93,960,000

$16,030,000

$25,456,000

$131,713,697

$93,960,000

$434,738,175

$100,075,000

$25,894,697

(20%)

-0-

$418,708,175

$74,619,000
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 144

APPENDIX 4

Dear Tribal Leader:

As you may be aware, BIA and a group of tribal leaders and consultants have been working for

the past nine months on a report for the Senate Appropriations Committee on the distribution of Tribal

Priority Allocation (TPA) funds among the Tribal governments we serve. The TPA Workgroup has nearly

completed its work, and I am writing to ask for your input on the issue.

I formed the TPA Workgroup in response to Section 129 of the Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations

legislation for BIA. Section 129 directed that BIA present to the Appropriations Committee by April 1

a report on the distribution of TPA funds and recommendations on how TPA funds should be allocated in

the future. The Workgroup organized itself into several subgroups, each of which has produced a report

to the BIA and me. With this letter you will receive a copy of each of the subgroup reports.

BIA is now taking the material produced by the subgroups and developing the final report. Before

submitting that report, we are anxious to have your ideas on the issues. I have asked the twelve Area

Directors to arrange for consultation meetings in their respective areas to obtain tribal input, and we

welcome any written comments you might wish to submit. While I will not be able to meet with Tribes in

each of the twelve areas, I will be meeting with tribes in the Aberdeen, Albuquerque, Billings, Navajo, and

Phoenix areas. I also am inviting the leadership of certain Self-Governance Tribes and certain tribes with

large gaming operations to meet with me in Washington to discuss the issues.

I should emphasize that the subgroup reports we are transmitting with this letter do not necessarily

represent BIA’s views or my views. I have made clear to the Workgroup, and the Senate Appropriations

Committee made clear to me, that the Workgroup is advisory only; the final report to the Committee will

represent the views of the BIA and the Interior Department. Because we have only received the Subgroup

reports in the last few days, we do not yet have a draft of the final report to share with you. To facilitate

and focus your discussion of the issues, enclosed is a summary of the report and some of the

recommendations we are considering.

Your views on these matters are extremely important to BIA and to me. I urge you to participate

in the regional consultation meetings and express your views on all of these matters and any related issues

that you wish to bring to my attention. I assure you that we will consider carefully each and every opinion

expressed.

Thank you in advance for your participation in this process. These are critical issues for the future

of the government-to-government relationship between your Tribe and the United States. I ask that you

consider these issues carefully and share your best advice with us so that we may accurately report tribal

opinion on this matter. Should you have any questions concerning the regional consultation meetings, please

be in touch with your Area Director and with your Area representative to the TPA Workgroup.
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 145

BIA Report Outline

The report will first describe some basic demographics of Indian Country. We will discuss the

service populations of the tribes, the trust acreage of the reservations, and information from the most recent

labor force reports we have produced.

The report will then examine the obligations the United States has undertaken to the Tribes. We

will discuss the various sources of Federal obligations, such as treaties, agreements, statutes, and executive

orders, and how courts have described those obligations. We will explore systematically how the various

TPA programs relate to these Federal obligations and discuss how the various authorizing statutes for BIA

programs direct us to distribute program funds to the Tribes. As you may know, although the Committee

directed us to consider tribal business revenues in developing our recommendations, it also said that we

were not to consider revenue from tribal trust assets. The report will discuss why the Committee’s

distinction between trust and non-trust income is sound, and emphasize that even if Congress were to

redistribute TPA funds to reflect the relative needs and revenues of the Tribes, trust programs should not

be affected negatively by the redistribution, because the Federal responsibility for Indian trust assets is

enforceable regardless of the prosperity or poverty of the Tribes.

The report will then turn to how the United States funds the various obligations it has undertaken

to the Tribes. Using information developed by the Office of Management and Budget, Congressional

Research Service, and the Workgroup, we will show the appropriations levels for various tribal programs

over the last two decades for all Indian programs of the Federal government. We will then look more

specifically at funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its TPA programs. The report will demonstrate

that the growth in funding for Indian programs has not kept pace with the overall growth in Federal

spending, or even with increased costs faced by the Tribes and BIA due to inflation.

The report then will delve into how BIA funds are allocated to the Tribes. We will point out the

differences in how we fund self-governance compacts and self-determination contracts, and how we fund

services provided directly by BIA. We expect that the report will reveal a number of discrepancies, such

as Tribes of similar population and economic circumstances having disparate shares of funding for social

service programs, and Tribes with similar land bases having disparate shares of trust program funding. The

reasons for these disparities will be explained. Some of the reasons are historical, some are because of line

item appropriations for a specific Tribe’s programs, some are because of BIA decisions, and some simply

reflect subtle differences in tribal circumstances. Certain systematic disparities will be examined as well.

For example, Self-Governance Tribes tend to receive funding beyond what they would receive if they were

contracting under the Self-Determination Act or receiving services directly from the BIA. We have

identified reasons for this disparity, most relating to instructions we received from Congress and to Interior’s

aggressive implementation of the Self-Governance policy.

The next subject of the report will be tribal needs. We have identified objective standards against

which to measure TPA funding to the Tribes. It will not surprise you that BIA funding for tribal programs

falls far short of tribal needs. We will quantify these programmatic shortfalls to the extent possible. We

will then show how certain Tribes use their own resources to supplement our TPA funding to address the
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 146

shortfall. (These Tribes volunteered financial information, for which we are most grateful.) Even with the

tribal contributions to these programs, there remain substantial unmet needs.

We then will turn to the subject of tribal revenues, particularly gaming revenues. We have not

asked Tribes to provide detailed reports on their business revenues, but have obtained information on

gaming revenues. We believe that, while there are exceptions, most large amounts of non-trust revenues

received by Tribes are from gaming. We will discuss the revenues of a number of Tribes, on an anonymous

basis, and how those revenues compare to the needs of the Tribes. We will look at the respective TPA

shares of these Tribes and analyze whether TPA represents a substantial share of the tribal budgets. The

key question is: Should TPA funds be transferred from these Tribes to more needy Tribes? To answer this

question we look at whether precedents exist for “needs testing” either in Indian programs or in Federal

programs for state and local governments. We then ask whether, even if Congress were to require us to

transfer funds from the most prosperous to the most needy, would the amounts of TPA funds transferred

have any meaningful impact of the programmatic funding shortfalls discussed above.

The final portion of the report will discuss options and alternatives for the allocation of TPA funds.

We are most anxious to hear your views on all of the information presented above, and to have your

thoughts on the following questions:

1. Should we continue to exclude funding for contract support, General Assistance, the Housing

Improvement Program, and Road Maintenance from tribal base funding?

2. Should we continue to spread general increases in TPA funding proportionately to all Tribes, or

should we target the Tribes with the greatest unmet need for such increases? Should we first meet all

inflationary costs of all Tribes before using a need-based formula to distribute the remainder?

3. How could we restructure our budget submissions to the Congress to more clearly present

information on Self-Governance, Self-Determination, and direct service programs on a tribe-by-tribe basis?

4, What information should the Tribes be asked to submit to support requests for appropriations, and

what reporting should be required to determine the effectiveness of BIA and tribal programs?

5. Should we do away with the “Aid to Tribal Government” and “Consolidated Tribal Government

Programs” line items in favor of more specific line items that better describe the tribal activities funded by

these line items?

6. What should our policy be for funding extremely small Tribes? Should the Congress require

regional consortia in order to create economies of scale? Should the Congress encourage such consortia

and how might it do so?

7. Should existing TPA allocations be revised to eliminate disparities among Tribes? Should we rely

instead on targeting increases in future funding levels to eliminate these disparities? Is it realistic to rely on

future increases?
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 147

8. Should the most prosperous Tribes be required to give up their TPA allocations? Under what

circumstances? How should we redistribute any savings realized under such a policy? Are there any

programs that must be funded for even the most prosperous Tribes?

9. Instead of requiring the most prosperous Tribes to return their TPA allocations, should we

encourage them to do so? What incentives might be offered to encourage the Tribes?

10. If we are directed by the Congress to reallocate TPA on the basis of tribal needs and tribal

revenues, what information should BIA be required to collect and how should BIA collect it? If BIA

collects proprietary information, what measures should we take to protect its confidentiality?
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations Page 148

BIA/TRIBAL

WORKGROUP

ON

TRIBAL NEEDS

ASSESSMENT

- MEMBERSHIP -
APPENDIX 5BIA/TRIBAL WORKGROUP ON TRIBAL NEEDS ASSESSMENTCONTACTS 

Name Title Address Telephone Fax 

AAllen, W. Ron Chairman 1033 Old Blyn Highway (360)683-1109 (360)683-4643 j

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribal Council Sequim, WA 98382

Atcitty, Thomas President P.O. Box 9000 (520)871-6352 (520)871-4025

Navajo Nation Window Rock, AZ 86515

BBeartusk, Keith Area Director, Billings Area 316 N. 26th Street (406)247-7943 (406)247-7976

Bureau of Indian Affairs Billings, MT 59101

Beaver, Perry Principal Chief P.O. Box 580 (918)756-8700 (918)756-1434 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation Okmulgee, OK 74447

Bonney, Torr Financial Analyst 320 Willoughby Avenue (907)463-7191

Central Council Tlingit Haida Suite 300

Juneau, AK 99801

CChurchill, Bernida NCAI Vice-President HRC-67, Box 194 (320)532-7428 (320)532-7506

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Onamia, MN 56539

Clapham, Britt Senior Assistant Attorney General P.O. Drawer 2010 (520)871-6345 (520)871-6177

Navajo Nation Window Rock, AZ 86515

Cordova, Jerry Office of Self Governance 1849 C Street, NW (202)219-0240 (202)219-2201

Bureau of Indian Affairs MS-2542 MIB

Washington, DC 20240
Name Title Address Telephone Fax 

DDeloria, Sam American Indian Law Center P.O. Box 4456 Sta A (505)277-5462

Albuquerque, NM 87196

Demoski, Peter Tribal Administrator P.O. Box 65049 (907)898-2339 (907)898-2207

Nulato Tribal Council Nulato, AK 99765

Denetsone, Genni (Acting) Area Director, Navajo Area P.O. Box 1060 (505)863-8314 (505)863-8245

Bureau of Indian Affairs Gallup, NM 87305

FFortney, Gayle Budget Analyst 1849 C Street, NW (202)208-3640 (202)208-6635 

Division of Program Development MS-4616 MIBand Implementation Washington, DC 20240Bureau of Indian Affairs

GGay, Rick Grants and Contracts Officer P.O. Box 638 (541)278-5222 (541)276-3095 

Confederated Tribes of the Pendleton, OR 97801Umatilla Indian Reservation

Gover, Kevin Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs 1849 C Street, NW (202)208-7163 (202)208-5320

Bureau of Indian Affairs MS-4140 MIB

Washington, DC 20240

HHanna, Jeanette Budget Chief 1849 C Street, NW (202)208-6181 (202)208-6635 

Division of Program Development MS-4616 MIBand Implementation Washington, DC 20240Bureau of Indian Affairs

Holmes, Cyndi Self Governance Coordinator 1033 Old Blyn Highway (360)681-4612 (360)681-3405 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 

Name Title Address Telephone Fax 
Hughes, Michael Consultant on Indian Affairs P.O. Box 26540 (602)395-1136 (602)395-1136

Phoenix, AZ 85068 (Call first)

JJaeger, Ron Area Director, Sacramento Area 2800 Cottage Way (916)979-2600 (916)979-2569

Bureau of Indian Affairs Sacramento, CA 95825 Ext. 221

KKetzler, Al Jr. Tanana Chiefs Conference Inc. 122 First Avenue, (907)452-8251 (907)459-3850 

Suite 600Fairbanks, AK 99701

LLujan, Alex Governor Box 6008 (505)867-3317 (505)867-9235

Pueblo of Sandia Bernalillo, NM 87004

MMaddox, Deborah Director 1849 C Street, NW (202)208-3463 (202)208-5113 

Office of Tribal Services MS-4603 MIB gov.Bureau of Indian Affairs Washington, DC 20240

Manuel, Hilda Deputy Commissioner-Indian Affairs 1849 C Street, NW (202)208-5116 (202)208-5320

Bureau of Indian Affairs MS-4140 MIB

Washington, DC 20240

Martin, Tim Executive Director 711 Stewarts Ferry Pike (615)872-7900 (615)872-7417

United South Eastern Tribes Suite 100

Nashville, TN 37214

McDivitt, Jim Chief of Staff 1849 C Street, NW (202)208-7163 (202)208-5320

Office of the Assistant Secretary MS-4140 MIBBureau of Indian Affairs Washington, DC 20240

Name Title Address Telephone Fax 

Morrin, Larry Area Director, Minneapolis Area 331 S. 2nd Avenue (612)373-1000 (612)373-1186

Bureau of Indian Affairs Minneapolis, MN 55401 Ext. 1020
Murphy, Charles W. Chairman P.O. Box D (701)854-7202 (701)854-7299

Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council Fort Yates, ND 58538

NNordwall, Wayne Area Director, Phoenix Area P.O. Box 10 (602)379-6600 (602)379-4413

Bureau of Indian Affairs Phoenix, AZ 85001

RRainbolt, Harry Budget Coordinator 1849 C Street, NW (202)208-3112 (202)208-5113 

Office of Tribal Services MS-4603 MIBBureau of Indian Affairs Washington, DC 20240

Rupnicki, Mamie Chairperson 16277 Q Road (785)966-2255 (785)966-2144 mrupnicki@ju

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Mayetta, KS 66509-8970of Kansas

SSinclair, Bill Director 1849 C Street, NW (202)219-0240 (202)219-2201

Office of Self Governance MS-2542 MIBBureau of Indian Affairs Washington, DC 20240

Speaks, Stan Area Director, Portland Area 911 NE 11th Avenue (503)231-6702 (503)231-2201

Bureau of Indian Affairs Portland, OR 97232

TThomas, Mary V. Governor P.O. Box 97 (520)562-6000 (520)562-3422

Gila River Indian Community Sacaton, AZ 85247

Tuell, Loretta Special Assistant and Counselor 1849 C Street, NW (202)208-7163 (202)208-5320 

To the Assistant Secretary MS-4140 MIBOffice of the Assistant Secretary

Name Title Address Telephone Fax 

Turner, Dennis Chairman P.O. Box 1470 (760)749-0910 (760)749-5615

Southern California Tribal Valley Center, CA 92082Chairmen’s Association

VVirden, Terry Director 1849 C Street, NW (202)208-5831 (202)219-125
Office of Trust Responsibilities MS-4513 MIBBureau of Indian Affairs Washington, DC 20240

WWashakie, John Chairman P.O. Box 217 (307)332-3532 (307)332-4578

Shoshone Business Committee Fort Washakie, WY 82514

Weaver, Douglas Budget and Compliance Officer P.O. Box 6408 (601)650-1508 (601)650-9990 dweaver@cho

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Philadelphia, MS 39350