U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–278 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–500

IMPLEMENTATION AND REAUTHORIZATION OF

THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK

OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE IMPLEMENTATION AND REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF

1996 IN INDIAN COUNTRY

MAY 10, 2002

WASHINGTON, DC

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Vice Chairman

FRANK MURKOWSKI, Alaska

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona,

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

HARRY REID, Nevada

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

PAUL WELLSTONE, Minnesota

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PATRICIA M. ZELL, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

PAUL MOOREHEAD, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Statements:

Apesahnakwat, public relations, Tribal TANF, CA ....................................... 26

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from Montana ............................................ 7

Cornell, Stephen, director, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy,

University of Arizona .................................................................................... 5

Cross, Terry, executive director, National Indian Child Welfare Association ................................................................................................................. 33

Fagnoni, Cynthia M., managing director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues, General Accounting Office ...................................... 3

Hicks, Sarah, director, Welfare Reform Program, National Congress of

American Indians .......................................................................................... 22

Hill, Virginia, executive director, Torres Martinez Tribal TANF ................. 26

Howard, Doug, director, Michigan Family Independence Agency and

president, American Public Human Services Association ......................... 24

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, chairman, Committee

on Indian Affairs ........................................................................................... 1

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota .................................. 9

Larin, Kathy, job leader ................................................................................... 3

Massey, Dallas, chairman, White Mountain Apache Tribe ........................... 12

Peters, Michael, tribal secretary, Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe .............. 17

Quaid, Julie, president, National Indian Child Care Association, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs .................................................................... 30

Wall-McDonald, Teresa, Salish and Kootenai Tribes .................................... 19

Windy Boy, Alvin, chairman, Chippewa Cree Tribe, Rocky Boy Reservation ................................................................................................................. 14

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Ahsogeak, Perry R., vice president of programs, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. ........................................................................................................... 39

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado, vice chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs .............................................................. 87

Cornell, Stephen ............................................................................................... 57

Cross, Terry ...................................................................................................... 47

DeRocco, Emily Stover, assistant secretary, Employment and Training,

Department of Labor .................................................................................... 68

Hicks, Sarah ...................................................................................................... 40

Peters, Michael ................................................................................................. 43

Quaid, Julie (with attachment) ....................................................................... 72

Trope, Jack F., executive director, Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc ......................................................................................................... 45

(1)

IMPLEMENTATION AND REAUTHORIZATION

OF THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND

WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT

OF 1996

WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2002

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 485,

Senate Russell Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Baucus, and Johnson.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

HAWAII, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

The CHAIRMAN. The committee meets this morning to receive testimony on the implementation of the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 in Indian country.

Seven years ago when this Act was being formulated, the Committee on Indian Affairs worked with the Senate Finance Committee to address the unique circumstances of Indian country where

unemployment rates in tribal communities ranging from 50 percent

to higher is unfortunately common and where the goal of

transitioning from welfare to work is frustrated by the fact that

there simply are not many job opportunities on or near many Indian reservations.

Studies inform us that across Native America thousands of Indian adults seized the opportunity of welfare reform initiatives to

acquire new skills and take advantage of job training and education but finding work in remote, rural areas has proven to be an

almost insurmountable obstacle.

Add to that, where there are high rates of unemployment and

poverty, people usually don’t have or can’t afford transportation to

take them to and from places of work that are often located at

great distances from their home communities. The lack of child

care options for single parents trying to enter the work force further frustrates the ability of those who are committed to leaving a

life dependent on welfare behind.

The act provided authority for tribal governments to assume responsibilities for the administration of welfare programs formerly

administered by the States but the act did not provide the kinds

of resources that had been provided to States through various block
2

grants to develop the necessary infrastructure to administer welfare programs. From 1980 to 1992, States received approximately $542 million

for automated computer systems to administer welfare programs.

Accordingly, many tribal governments simply didn’t have the computer systems and administrative structures in place to develop

and administer the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program.

There are many complex issues associated with how welfare to

work clients are counted by the States and to what extent State

numbers draw from unemployment on Indian reservations for purposes of receiving Federal funding but do not commit a proportionate share of the resources and provision of welfare to work program services to Indian people.

So today we will receive testimony from representatives of the

General Accounting Office [GAO] who at the request of the Committees on Indian Affairs and Finance are completing a study on

the implementation of welfare reform in Indian country. In addition, we will hear from other witnesses today who have studied

some aspect of how welfare reform is working in Native America

as well as from tribal leaders and program administrators who will

relate their experiences with developing effective temporary assistance for needy families.

It is most unfortunate that with all this important and useful information that will be placed in the official records of the Senate

today, the Federal agency that is charged with the primary responsibility of implementing welfare reform, the Department of Health

and Human Services, has declined to appear before the committee

this morning on the grounds that they are too busy. Sadly, it would

seem that the department doesn’t place a very high priority on welfare reform in Indian country.

A few days ago, Senator Baucus introduced a bill entitled, ‘‘The

American Indian Welfare Reform Act,’’ S. 2484. This bill seeks to

address many of the special circumstances in Indian country and

to provide a great array of resources for tribal TANF programs.

So we look forward to the testimony this morning as we work

with our colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to assure

that welfare reform initiatives are adapted to be more effective in

serving the needs of Native America. Looking upon the problem before us, it once again reminds us that possibly the best solutions

to Indian problems may be found in Indian country. We in Washington are men and women of good intentions and this Act was an

expression of good intentions but somehow it did not work in Indian country because some of us were not aware of the problems.

Perhaps the drafters were not aware that the distances were great,

jobs opportunities were scource or that poverty was that extensive,

or that in Navajo land, only 25 percent of the people have telephones. These are some of the small things that good meaning people may not have known.

I have here a statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell,

the vice chairman of this committee, who has other responsibilities,

so without objection, his statement will be made a part of the

record.

[Prepared statement of Senator Campbell appears in appendix.]
3

The CHAIRMAN. Our first panel consists of the following distinguished persons: The managing director, education, workforce, and

income security issues, General Accounting Office, Cynthia Fagnoni

and the director, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona in Tucson, Stephen Cornell.

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA M. FAGNONI, MANAGING DIRECTOR,

EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES,

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY KATHY

LARIN, JOB LEADER

Ms. FAGNONI. Good morning.

I would like to introduce also Kathy Larin who is with me. She

was the Job Leader on the project we are working on.

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome.

Ms. FAGNONI. I am pleased to be here today to discuss how

American Indians have fared under welfare reform and issues some

tribes have faced in administering tribal TANF programs. My testimony today will focus on four issues: The economic conditions on

reservations; how the number of American Indians receiving TANF

assistance has changed since the welfare reform law was enacted;

how tribes have used the flexibility in the law to design and administer their own programs; and challenges tribes have faced in implementing tribal TANF programs.

This testimony is based on ongoing work we are conducting for

you, Mr. Chairman, as well as Senators Baucus, Bingaman,

Daschle, and Conrad.

First, regarding economic conditions, our work shows that tribes

have engaged in various strategies to stimulate economic growth,

many focusing on the development of tribally owned enterprises,

yet despite these efforts, unemployment and poverty rates remain

high on many reservations.

To give just one example from the site visits we made, on the

Blackfeet Reservation of Montana, 74 percent of adults are unemployed and of those who are employed, 22 percent live in poverty,

according to the most recent BIA data. Furthermore, as Dr. Cornell

will also discuss, many tribes lack some of the key factors that

have been shown to lead to economic growth on reservations.

Regarding the second issue, TANF caseloads, the number of

American Indians receiving TANF benefits nationally has fallen

over the past several years, as it has for other groups, but on many

reservations, the number of American Indian families on welfare

has stayed the same or increased. In some States, most notably

South Dakota, Montana, and North Dakota, American Indians represent an increasing share of the States’ TANF caseloads. In South

Dakota, for example, American Indian families represent nearly 80

percent of the TANF caseload, up from 60 percent in 1994.

Turning now to tribal TANF programs, our third issue, the Department of Health and Human Services has to date approved 36

tribal TANF programs serving 172 tribes. Most of these programs

have used the flexibility in the law to tailor their programs to their

communities. Tribal TANF programs are given the flexibility to define the activities they count as work more broadly than State

TANF programs. Most programs have taken advantage of this

flexibility, allowing their recipients to participate in such activities
4

as traditional subsistence hunting and gathering, cultural activities, and self-employment that would not be counted as work activities under State TANF programs.

For example, the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, whose reservation is located on Washington’s Puget Sound, allows recipients to

count time spent engaged in traditional subsistence gathering and

fishing.

The tribal TANF programs that responded to our survey reported

that they tend to encourage recipients to engage in education or

training activities rather than emphasizing job search and work. In

contrast, a majority of TANF recipients engaged in work activities

in State programs are in unsubsidized jobs.

Tribal TANF programs also have more flexibility than States in

setting their own time limits on receipt of cash assistance, but so

far, HHS has not approved any plans that have time limits over

the 60-month maximum allowed under State programs. Tribes also

have more flexibility than States in determining how many TANF

recipients can continue to receive benefits after they reach their

time limits. For example, 10 of the 36 programs have chosen to exempt more recipients who reached their time limits than is permitted under State programs.

Of course many tribal TANF programs are not subject to time

limits because any time spent living on a reservation with an unemployment rate greater than 50 percent does not count toward an

individual’s time limit. Of the 29 tribal programs that serve a single tribe, 16 are located on reservations that have unemployment

rates of 50 percent or greater according to the most recent BIA

data.

Last, tribes have faced a number of challenges as they implement tribal TANF programs. Many tribes have found that data on

American Indians are inaccurate, complicating the determination of

tribal TANF grant amounts and making it difficult for tribes to design and plan their programs. In addition, because tribes are starting to administer TANF for the first time, many do not have the

infrastructure they need, nor do they have the experience or expertise in administering key program features such as determining eligibility and setting up information systems. The Fort Belknap Tribal TANF Program in Montana for example serves 175 families, yet

it does not have an automated information system for collecting,

processing, and reporting TANF data.

Tribes have secured contributions from a variety of sources to

cover their significant start-up costs and ongoing operating expenses. In addition, some tribes have received technical assistance

from the State and the Federal Government.

I would like to close by noting that tribes are just beginning to

administer their own welfare programs, tailor the design of their

programs to their communities and engage their members in a

broad array of work activities. It is not yet known whether these

programs will help recipients find employment before reaching time

limits or whether the flexibility afforded the tribal TANF programs

will allow them to continue to provide benefits to those who reach

the time limits without obtaining a job.

Whether tribal TANF programs will be successful in moving

more American Indians from welfare into the work force will ulti-
5

mately depend not only on the ability of the programs to meet their

recipients’ needs but also on the success of economic development

efforts in providing employment opportunities for American Indians.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Fagnoni appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Fagnoni.

We will listen to Dr. Cornell before we ask questions. Dr. Cornell?

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN CORNELL, DIRECTOR, UDALL CENTER FOR STUDIES IN PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

Mr. CORNELL. Thank you and I appreciate the opportunity to

talk with you this morning.

This past year, the Native Nations Institute for Leadership,

Management and Policy at the University of Arizona and the

Buder Center for American Indian Studies at Washington University in St. Louis were asked by the National Congress of American

Indians to analyze the impact of the 1996 legislation on American

Indians and Alaska Natives.

Dr. Eddie Brown of Washington University and I directed that

study and in the next few minutes I will touch briefly on some of

the key findings from it. The news is both good and bad and there

are six points I wish to make.

The first is that the 1996 legislation clearly has enhanced tribal

self governance and improved welfare service provision in Indian

country because it allowed Indian nations to design and administer

their own TANF and related programs with direct Federal support.

It has allowed those nations to design those programs to speak directly to reservation needs, given them improved flexibility, improved the accessibility of welfare related services, and the evidence is substantial that this has had positive benefits on the delivery of welfare services across Indian country in those cases where

tribes have taken over their own TANF programs. This is the good

news.

The bad news is that despite this, welfare reform has been substantially less successful in Indian country than elsewhere in moving individuals from welfare to work or in reducing poverty. Ms.

Fagnoni has already summarized some of the statistics on that. We

do not have a lot of research on the impact of welfare reform on

Indian family and community well being but the data we do have

are not encouraging.

The one longitudinal study to date in Arizona found that nearly

one-quarter of American Indians who had moved from welfare to

work under the new legislation had stopped working within 3

months, one-half were not working after 1 year, only a small portion of those who had made the move were working full time, even

among those with full-time employment, significant numbers reported they were unable to afford enough food for their families or

had lost gas or electricity services because of their inability to pay

utility bills.
6

Why are we seeing these discouraging outcomes? One reason certainly is resources and I could not put it better than you did yourself in the opening remarks, Indian tribes have been penalized for

being tribes and have not received the same resources that States

have received for the administration of TANF programs and child

care programs.

Another reason for this discouraging outcome is the distinctive

nature of some reservation populations. These resource inequities

are exacerbated by the fact that tribal TANF populations typically

include higher proportions of what are commonly known as hard to

serve clients who face multiple barriers to employment. The history

of dependency and economic stagnation on reservations has left behind high proportions of residents with little work experience and

few job skills and often high proportion of individuals suffering

from behavioral problems. These populations are particularly difficult and expensive to serve.

Yet another reason for discouraging outcomes on Indian reservations is the combination of particular obstacles to employment that

reservation residents face. The three leading obstacles that

emerged in our study were first, inadequate transportation. You

have already mentioned that yourself. The distances on reservations are often long to the workplace. Large numbers of Indian

families do not own an automobile and public transportation is essentially absent. This leaves many TANF recipients literally unable

to get to work. While there are some Federal programs that do

speak to these issues, tribal access to these programs has been limited.

The second obstacle is the lack of child care facilities. The 1996

legislation expanded the Child Care and Development Fund which

assists those leaving welfare in obtaining child care. Tribes can

take advantage of these funds and have some flexibility in doing

so. The legislation also significantly increased other funds that

tribes could use to support child care and these developments have

had positive effects. However, CCDF expires this year and even

with these additional funds, the lack of child care services in much

of Indian country prevents many reservation residents from taking

regular jobs.

The third obstacle is simply the lack of appropriate skills. Combined with the frequency of behavioral problems, this presents

tribes with daunting skills and job training challenges. While there

is Federal funding for these kinds of issues, that funding has not

increased since the passage of PRWORA in 1996. In short, a critical piece of the welfare to work puzzle is severely underfunded in

Indian country.

I would like to mention one positive development in that regard.

Public Law 102–477, the Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act allows tribes with funding for several employment and training related programs, including child

care, to pool those resources and integrate these services even if

they are funded by different Federal agencies.

This allows tribes to operate programs under a single plan and

budget. The evidence is that this has been very successful as tribes

have saved staff time, reduced paperwork, established one stop

shops and responded where needs are greatest, serving more people
7

and improving effectiveness. These kinds of models deserve our

support.

Finally, the largest barrier to welfare reform in Indian country

is simply job scarcity. There is an enormous gap on many reservations between the size of the labor force and the number of jobs

generated in local economies. Under these conditions many of those

leaving the welfare rolls face a stark set of options, either their

homelands in search of work elsewhere or rely on the already overburdened, informal family support networks through which many

reservation residents struggle to survive.

Current welfare policy has paid little attention to this problem.

In a sense, the supply side has been ignored, moving people from

welfare to work is an admirable policy goal but it has little chance

of success if there is no work to move to. Until Federal policy takes

seriously the need for reservation economic growth and invests in

building the growth capacities of Indian nations, welfare reform in

Indian country will spin its wheels.

Yet we know that economic development in Indian country can

work. We have evidence of tribes that are building sustainable and

self determined economies. The key factors appear to be the exercise of tribal sovereignty, capable governing institutions that match

indigenous cultures, and strategic thinking for the long term future.

What really is required is investments in nation building, in particular in the institutional capacities of tribal governments, as well

as support for tribal sovereignty so that Indian nations can shape

economic growth to their own priorities and goals.

Our overall conclusion is there have been some significant successes in the welfare arena in Indian country, particularly as some

nations have responded to the legislation with resourceful, innovative, welfare programs but while the shift in the legislation toward

tribal self governance is positive and productive, the combination

and concentration of obstacles to welfare reform on reservations,

the lack of program resources, and the lack of attention to economic

growth as a welfare reform strategy mean that current welfare

policies are likely to fail in much of Indian country.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Cornell appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Cornell.

Two days ago, a measure was introduced in the U.S. Senate entitled called ‘‘American Indian Welfare Reform Act,’’ S. 2484. Many

of us look upon this measure as one that may respond to many of

the problems that will be identified this morning. I am pleased and

honored to call upon Senator Max Baucus the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and also the author of this measure, if he

would wish to say a few words now.

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

MONTANA

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I thank all the members and everyone here today seeking the

same objective, namely how to provide better welfare reform legislation to help all our friends in Indian country.
8

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to stop by and make

a couple of brief statements.

I would like to begin with the 1996 law which I supported. As

we know, it introduced sweeping changes in the way welfare is

viewed. One important aspect of the 1996 law allowed States to operate their own programs and also it permitted Indian tribes to operate their own welfare programs. That was provided for the first

time. I think this is very wise policy and is certainly consistent

with the important value of tribal sovereignty which I support.

My own State of Montana has several tribes and so I have given

quite a bit of thought to how we could build upon the provisions

of the 1996 law. Too often, as we know, not only in Montana but

elsewhere, poverty has an Indian face. I might say that although

there has been about a 50-percent reduction in welfare caseload nationwide since the last law was enacted, that is much less true in

Indian country and in my State of Montana, 50 percent of all recipients today on welfare are Native Americans. It is a statistic

that is just glaringly a problem that has to be solved.

Also, according to the Census Bureau, about one-quarter of all

Native Americans live in poverty, more than twice the national

rate; the average household income for Native Americans was

about three-quarters of the rest of America, and that simply is not

right. Welfare reform has to work for everyone, not just those not

in Indian country.

Luckily the provisions of the 1996 law give a good start. The bill

I introduced last Wednesday is a product of working very closely

with a lot of Native Americans not only in my State but around the

country and there is one aspect I really want to focus on very, very

briefly and that is the section on economic development.

In the last bill, the focus was on job training, on education, but

since 1996, we have found that all the job training in the world

doesn’t do much good unless there are jobs available. I realize there

are many tribes that do not operate their own TANF program but

nevertheless, I believe it is very important that States work with

those tribes to develop their own plans.

In my legislation, I direct States to much more directly consult

with tribes for their own plan. I have directed States to describe

how they are providing equitable access.

There is much, much more obviously. I don’t want to take your

time but I do want to thank you very much for holding this hearing

because this is a critically important aspect of welfare reform. The

testimony you are getting here today will go a long way to helping

all of us in the Senate decide which provisions make the most

sense not only for America but more specifically for Indian country.

I would like to welcome two Montana panelists here today. One

is Alvin Windy Boy, chairman of the Chippewa Cree and he will

give testimony a bit later and Teresa McDonald, representing the

chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Those of

us who know Teresa know that she does a bang up job. They are

going to be testifying about TANF changes they think make the

most sense. I know they will give good advice, as will the other witnesses.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You are providing tremendous service here. As I said, we want to work with you.
9

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Baucus, thank you for your leadership

and your wise words. We will do our very best to handle the bill

you have just introduced in an expedited fashion.

It is my pleasure to call upon Senator Johnson.

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM

SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Briefly, I want to thank you again for holding this very timely

and essentially a very important hearing relative to welfare authorization as it relates to Indian country.

I want to thank Senator Max Baucus as well who has been a

champion of Native American issues is critically well positioned as

chairman of the Finance Committee to play an important role.

This hearing is an essential one. I appreciate the testimony of

this panel. We have unique needs in Indian country related to high

levels of poverty, lack of jobs, distances, lack of child care, lack of

transportation and so many other concerns that are somewhat

unique to Indian country as opposed to other communities across

the Nation.

Later on today, we are going to hear testimony of Michael Peters,

secretary of the Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

The Sisseton Wahpeton is the only tribe in South Dakota of our

nine tribes that runs its own TANF program. I have been impressed with what they have been able to do and look forward to

his insights, along with the insights of the rest of the panel members.

Thank you for holding this hearing today. I will submit a full

statement in writing.

[Prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have questions?

Senator JOHNSON. I have no questions for this panel.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a few questions.

Ms. Fagnoni, do you have any suggestions as to what incentives

we can provide that can best assist tribes in improving their TANF

programs? You have indicated that those who have had some flexibility in administering programs do succeed. Are there other incentives we can use?

Ms. FAGNONI. One of the things we identified in going out and

meeting with both States as well as tribes and representatives

from their programs was there are some aspects of funding that

are available to State programs but not available to the tribal programs. We cite a couple of those in our testimony.

One is in the 1996 welfare reform legislation. There were what

are called different types of performance bonuses that States could

decide to apply for, things that would give them some additional

funding if they met some goals in terms of job placement and retention, earnings and things like that. It might be worth taking a

look at whether it would be helpful to allow tribal programs to also

have access to those bonuses.

There is also another area where it is something to consider, but

I know States would have a viewpoint on this. In the funding that

States receive, there is a portion that is Federal and a portion that

is State which is called maintenance-of-effort funding. For tribes
10

that assume responsibility for their own programs, the State requirement for maintenance of effort gets reduced to take that into

consideration. There has been some discussion that if that requirement were not reduced, that might provide States with some incentive to provide some portion of the maintenance-of-effort funds to

the tribal programs. Some States already do that, some States

don’t. That is another example.

The other thing we heard which may or may not be a funding

issue, may have more to do with how to best enable tribes to take

advantage of the resources that may be out there. The tribes that

do use the 477 Program find that to be useful. You will probably

hear from them about that in trying to streamline and merge different funding streams to their advantage.

The other thing we heard from a number of programs was the

need for more systematic technical assistance from the States and

Federal Government.

These are some examples of both funding as well as assistance

that might be helpful or things to consider.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the law, tribes operating TANF programs

may define what work activities are all about. Is that definition

subject to approval?

Ms. FAGNONI. Yes; the tribal programs are subject to approval by

HHS. HHS has approved plans that have defined work activities

more broadly than would be allowed under the State programs. For

example, some tribes have taken advantage of this and will include

teaching cultural activities as a countable work activity and include

subsistence types of hunting and gathering as a countable work activity, so they are allowed to use better definitions. A number of

tribes have taken advantage of that to more broadly define work

activities for purposes of meeting their work participation goals.

The issue then becomes how does this help move people ultimately into a job and self sufficiency. It is certainly something that

can help in the short term for work participation goals but I think

it remains to be seen how this flexibility helps or doesn’t in terms

of self sufficiency which is the ultimate goal.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this information communicated with all tribes

in our Nation? For example, I would assume that some of the better equipped tribes would know what is happening in the world but

there may be some with limited communication, transportation and

such, who may not be aware that in Tribe A you may use salmon

fishing as an authorized work activity and if they knew that, they

might do the same thing. Do we have a system whereby everyone

is made aware of what other tribes are doing under TANF?

Ms. FAGNONI. What we heard going around the country and in

talking with people is there really isn’t a system like that in place.

I know the tribes themselves have gotten together in different forums to try to share information but what we heard is there are

a number of individuals and officials who felt they wished there

were a better mechanism for learning about best practices of different programs.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you had an opportunity to study Senator

Baucus’ bill, the new one?

Ms. FAGNONI. We really haven’t at this point.
11

The CHAIRMAN. Are you ready to make any assessment or suggestions?

Ms. FAGNONI. As I said, I think there are some places in terms

of performance bonuses and maintenance of effort that might be

something to consider but certainly you would want to hear the

viewpoint of States, particularly on the maintenance-of-effort issue.

I think there is legitimate interest in additional technical assistance. Those are the pieces that really surfaced from the specific

work we did for this project.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Cornell, both Senator Baucus and you have

emphasized economic growth and economic development. What is

the use of training people if there are no jobs available? Have you

had an opportunity to look over Senator Baucus’ bill?

Mr. CORNELL. I am afraid I haven’t, Senator, although I was encouraged by his statement that the emphasis in this bill was in

part on economic development. I would want to see what the provisions of the bill say.

The CHAIRMAN. What sort of economic development would you

suggest?

Mr. CORNELL. I am not convinced that there is an economic development strategy that can be applied across Indian country.

What we have seen is that those Indian nations with appropriate

governing institutions that have been able to build an environment

in which entrepreneurs want to work, people want to invest energy,

time and money, those Indian nations are developing their own

strategies and they range very widely from private entrepreneurship and small business startups popping up around reservations

to major tribally owned and operated enterprises, usually responding to the specifics of the local market and situation.

I think the critical thing is allowing tribes the opportunity to

build economic growth strategies of their own and investing in the

institutional capacity to bring those strategies to life.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, there is no one set scheme that

can be initiated in Washington; it has to be tailored by tribes in

their locale?

Mr. CORNELL. I think when it comes to economic strategies, part

of the difficulty has been schemes that were originated somewhere

else and then applied in Indian country. I think what Washington

could do is pay more attention to the institutional environment in

which economic development is trying to take root and investing in

supporting sovereign tribal governments in exercising their sovereignty effectively through strong tribal courts and those kinds of

institutional mechanisms.

Those then put in place the groundwork with which tribes can

pursue their own strategies more effectively. I think that is more

the role of Washington in that game, the institutional capacity investments rather than coming up with specific economic strategies

and then trying to apply them in very different situations.

The CHAIRMAN. May this committee submit questions to both of

you because we would like to do that, taking into consideration as

well the new bill introduced by Senator Baucus?

Ms. FAGNONI. Certainly.

Mr. CORNELL. Yes.
12

The CHAIRMAN. As a result, we will keep the record open for 4

weeks to give you ample time to respond. Most of the questions I

have here are rather technical in nature.

With that, I thank you very much for joining us.

Our next panel consists of: Dallas Massey, Sr., chairman, White

Mountain Apache Tribe, White River, AZ; the chairman of the

Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy’s Reservation, Box Elder, MT,

Alvin Windy Boy, accompanied by the director of the Cherish Our

Indian Children, Toni Plummer; the tribal secretary of the Sisseton

Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of Agency Village, SD, Mike Peters; Teresa

Wall-McDonald, Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Pablo, MT.

May I first call upon Chairman Massey.

STATEMENT OF DALLAS MASSEY, CHAIRMAN, WHITE

MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE

Mr. MASSEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee. It is a privilege and honor for me as chairman of the White Mountain Apache Tribe to address the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on behalf of your constituents who

are my people, Fort Apache Indian Reservation, and our relatives

in Indian country as a whole.

Our purpose today is to discuss the implementation and reauthorization of Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act

of 1996 which I will refer to simply as the act.

In the interest of working with you for the privilege of millions

of citizens of the United States who are privileged and honored to

be Native Americans, I request your swift promulgation of welfare

reform legislation tailored to the unique needs of Indian country

that realistically fulfills the purpose of the act because while it

helps, it fails to address the root of the overwhelming need of welfare assistance in Indian country.

This root is the lack in Indian country of jobs, educational opportunities and skills training, and the availability of low transportation which all requires enough time to cultivate for rich and productive growth. Once we address the root of the problem, the act

can help foster the benefit of our community that we all envision.

I will talk later about the ideas I think are necessary for the legislation that can bring true welfare reform to Indian country. Right

now, let me tell you about the impact the act has had on the Fort

Apache Indian Reservation, the home of my people.

As the chairman of White Mountain Apache Tribe, I know the

needs of my reservation and my constituents. With this background, I can confidently tell you that PRWORA has failed to adequately address the needs of the White Mountain Apache people

and Indian country in general. After the act became law, we looked

at it and decided we wanted to take advantage of the opportunity

it offered us to develop our own service plan and to operate welfare

assistance as a tribal program. We were one of the first nations to

take a bold step of developing our own service plan and operating

our own program. It has been good to see the benefits that it has

brought to our communities and people.

However, along the way we also learned the restriction of the act

such as 5-year limits for assistance which could seriously hurt our

people. Although the act helps fund skills and educational training
13

for work preparation, these people soon realize that while they are

well trained, they still cannot find jobs because of economic depression on Indian reservations.

Recent revisions of the Act exempt Indian nations with more

than 50 percent unemployment which is what helps continue to

meet the needs of our community but seems to penalize those nations who succeed in lowering their unemployment rates below 50

percent, only to have their peoples’ welfare assistance cut for

progress they have made. More changes are needed if we are to see

true welfare reform in Indian country and on Fort Apache Indian

Reservation.

Unemployment statistics from the most recent census shows that

White Mountain Apache Tribe and Indian people in general are

twice likely to live in poverty than the non-Indian population and

twice as likely to be without employment.

My people go without food, electricity, employment and shelter.

This is not their fault. It is the lack of jobs and inadequate Federal

and local funding assistance required for the area with close to 60-

percent unemployment and average income far below the Federal

poverty level.

Today’s needs are even more apparent. While the White Mountain Apache Tribe did take advantage of its ability to contract the

operation of Temporary Assistance of Needy Family Program along

with the Welfare to Work Program, the White Mountain Apache

Tribe has experienced significant increase in its clients who request

assistance for themselves and their families. Coupled with this increase, we have experienced a financial setback with the State of

Arizona recently withdrawing its State moneys earmarked for the

TANF program in Indian nations and applied them to the State

budget deficit. Arizona’s withdrawal of this funding yet again disadvantaged the ability of my people and Indian people throughout

Arizona to realize economic self sufficiency and eventual freedom

from Government assistance.

By cutting funding, Arizona made disparities between our ability

to provide services even more apparent. Although the act allows an

Indian government the right to operate their own welfare assistance programs and to develop plans, policies, and procedures tailored to the unique needs of our communities and clients, it still

fails to place us on a level playing field with our counterparts in

the state of economic security.

As an example, consider the expense of my government facing

today in training and education of its Department of Social Service

staff and clients on change, on its plan and operation, costs which

could be absorbed through adequate start-up, technical assistance

funding similar to Federal funding which greatly assists State governments and their welfare reform assistance capacity.

Not only do we request increased funding for administrative and

technical assistance, we also strongly encourage Federal finance assistance to our community in the form of tax initiatives, bond incentives, transportation grants, vocational-educational opportunity

grants and community infrastructure development grants. There is

no doubt that increased funding for the administration of welfare

assistance is desperately needed but we need even greater infusion

of financial assistance for development of small businesses, con-
14

struction and industrial improvements so we can jump start our

economy. We all know that small businesses oil the economic engine that powers a thriving community. We want to give our people

the chance to operate their own business and realize a profit.

As you can see my overall request is that you promulgate welfare

reform legislation tailored for Indian country, that provides realistic opportunity for our people and our government to meet the extreme needs of our communities which are generated from high unemployment rates and the lack of industry and educational opportunities.

Adequate Federal funding targeted toward the area I just mentioned will help not only the White Mountain Apache Tribe but all

Native nations across Indian country in creating real economic opportunity for their members. Only when we see real economic opportunity and considerable increase in jobs, training, business opportunities in our communities will we even begin to speak of realistic welfare reform in Indian country.

Mr. Chairman, from the elders of the White Mountain Apache

Tribe, I express our deep appreciation and gratitude for your efforts to bring help in their struggle for economic self sufficiency. I

encourage you to seek even more advice and recommendations from

Indian nations across the country and various State and local advocacy groups for Indian people before finalizing and passing American Indian welfare reform.

Our decisions today will impact future generations, so let us give

them respect by making sure the decisions we make are well

thought, well informed, adequate for their needs when they realize

them in their future.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Massey appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Now may I call upon Chairman Windy Boy? Welcome, sir.

STATEMENT OF ALVIN WINDY BOY, CHAIRMAN, CHIPPEWA

CREE TRIBE, ROCKY BOY RESERVATION

Mr. WINDY BOY. Greetings, Senator.

My name is Alvin Windy Boy and I want to acknowledge Senator

Baucus and his presentation this morning, our Senator from the

great State of Montana.

I applaud my Senator for the commitment that he is creating

with Indian country, particularly in Montana in regard to the issue

we are discussing here.

My name is Alvin Windy Boy, Sr., Chairman of the Chippewa

Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy’s. I am presenting my testimony today on

behalf of my own tribe and several other Montana tribes, namely

the Blackfeet Tribe, the Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Tribes of Fort

Belknap Reservation, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation. I want to

thank you for this opportunity to present comments on welfare reform in Indian country.

I would like to commend the chairman and the vice chairman

and the members of the Indian Affairs Committee for conducting

this hearing on the implementation and reauthorization of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of

1996, generally referred to as the Welfare Reform Act.
15

I again want to commend our Senator, Max Baucus, for listening

to the views of tribal governments and for introducing S. 2484, the

American Indian Welfare Reform Act of 2002.

As a side note, in Indian country, particularly in my area, we encourage our young children from infancy to that first period of

adulthood. As parents, as this little child begins that step toward

walking, the first step in life, we offer that baby encouragement.

When we see the baby fall, we help and encourage him. That is

how I look at the 1996 bill. Now we are coming into a different era

after 5 years of passage of that.

My testimony will offer commentary on both welfare reform in

general and S. 2484. It is important for this committee to receive

the perspectives of tribal governments that have been successful in

operating tribal temporary assistance to needy families programs

as well as those still under State TANF plans.

As Congress deliberates on legislation to reauthorize the Welfare

Reform Act, it is important that you be vigilant in keeping foremost

in your minds those American Indian children, women, and families that have endured and continue to survive on truly minimal

means. Our tribal governments are trying to pick up the pieces and

help in the daily struggles of what are, in reality, the most impoverished people in this country, members of federally-recognized Indian tribes.

You will hear today from representatives of tribes operating their

own TANF programs and I am here to provide the perspective of

the non-TANF tribes, those tribes that for a number of reasons

cannot or have not chosen to operate tribal TANF programs. Of the

issues relative to tribal participation in welfare reform, although

there are other related areas of discussion, we have chosen the

areas of governance, program delivery and service, data control and

the impact as primary.

Existing methods have been tested and proven to only widen the

gap between tribal-State relations and hinder the process of American Indians and families becoming self sufficient with meaningful

and productive lives. Without the solid foundation of data, evaluation and research, long term change within the welfare system will

be minimal at best.

The governance aspect, welfare reform with its mandate for decisionmaking at the local level has fundamentally altered the manner by which governmental entities and affected individuals relate

to one another. Montana’s Indian tribes still need to see a level

playing field relative to decision making. Due to the nature of the

Federal block grants within the Federal, State, and local government systems, and the fundamental efforts to establish local control, the present system deters from the policy of government to

government relationship between tribes and States and tribes and

the Federal Government. Consequently, the decisionmaking authority of tribal governments is undermined.

Because there is no set protocol for policy setting between the

Montana DPHHS, county offices and tribal governments, the bulk

of policy decision and funding discretions remain with DPHHS and

county offices and we have little input as tribes.

In addition, the design and nature of the Federal block grant system has limited consultation between tribal and State governments
16

on State TANF plans. The Montana State Plan has given county

offices primary control, thus creating an uneven tripartite relationship between State, tribal, and county governments.

It is the concern of the five non-tribal TANF tribes in Montana

that tribal governments should not have to be under the thumb of

county governments. Consultation involving tribes should remain

at the highest level of State and Federal Government.

I want to offer some comments on the legislation introduced by

Senator Baucus, the American Indian Welfare Reform Act of 2002,

S. 2484. These comments were adopted at a recent meeting of the

Chippewa Cree Tribe, the Blackfeet Tribe and the Assiniboine and

Gros Ventre Tribes for Fort Belknap, Northern Cheyenne and the

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck. These tribes met last

week in Great Falls, MT to go over the draft concepts of the Baucus bill and I have been asked to relay the following comments.

First and foremost, we strongly support the Baucus bill and hope

that Congress will enact it as soon as possible and fully fund the

costs associated with its implementation.

If the levels of funding and assistance proposed in S. 2484 had

been included in PRWORA in 1996 and there is little question

many tribes would have chosen to operate tribal TANF. As it

stands today, only 37 plans representing 137 tribes have chosen

tribal TANF. Within the State of Montana, there are 7 fully recognized tribes, Salish and Kootenai and Fort Belknap who operate

tribal TANF.

The five Montana tribes that met last week hope that any legislation enacted can include the application of ‘‘Rural/Frontier Status’’ designations for tribes operating TANF programs in the same

manner as those designations are presently awarded to States with

high unemployment, limited accessibility to services, and that are

geographically isolated. Those States get supplemental funds and

tribes should be eligible for similar supplemental funding.

We strongly support the components of the tribal TANF Improvement Fund in the Baucus bill. These provisions recognize the fundamental weaknesses of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and its treatment of Indian tribes and take positive steps to rectify those flaws.

We greatly appreciate some of the changes that Senator Baucus

has made to the previous draft which reflect comments we submitted to his office.

The inclusion of the language indicating that tribes applying to

operate a TANF program be given a priority and that tribes of all

sizes receive funding and to maximize the number of tribes which

receive funding are good provisions. We are also pleased to see recognition and acknowledgement that the 1994 figures compiled by

States are not likely to be reflective of the true costs facing a tribe

operating a TANF program. The $140 million allocated for tribes

that can demonstrate a higher caseload than originally estimated

is a very positive position.

Under the equitable access provision, we think Senator Baucus

is on the right track relative to encouraging State/tribal cooperation and think it is a good idea to involve HHS in this but we think

there should be a provision to require tribal concurrence in the

State specific information on demographics and caseload characteristics of Indians served by State TANF programs.
17

Finally, again, we want to thank Senator Baucus for including

tribal colleges and governments and ensuring they have priority for

accessing the research dollars in the bill.

In closing, it is the consensus of the Montana tribes to support

and endorse the proposed ‘‘American Indian Welfare Reform Act of

2002.’’ Tribes must be afforded the opportunity to operate tribal

TANF and provide for our own people. This legislation provides incentive and opportunity to do this.

Montana tribal governments are committed to strengthening

tribal families, protecting the interests of tribal children and developing economically prosperous and culturally thriving community.

In closing, a lot of families that fall through the cracks ultimately end up in my office for basic needs, basic necessities. Some

of us may think that acquiring pampers is not a big deal but to

that woman and child, it is a big deal. The list goes on. If they are

not able to receive assistance by some program, ultimately they

end up on my door or my colleagues.

With that, I thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Windy Boy appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Plummer, would you care to add anything?

Ms. PLUMMER. No.

The CHAIRMAN. I will now call upon tribal secretary, Mike Peters.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PETERS, TRIBAL SECRETARY,

SISSETON WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBE

Mr. PETERS. Good morning.

We do have a prepared statement and I will read part of the first

page. I will then skip to the third page which has four paragraphs

I want to read.

The CHAIRMAN. I can assure you that your full statements are

all going to be in the record.

Mr. PETERS. I bring you greetings from the Sisseton Wahpeton

Sioux Tribal Council. My name is Michael Peters, the elected tribal

secretary of the Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe. I thank you for the

opportunity to present testimony on the tribal concerns regarding

the reauthorization of the Federal welfare reform law, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

We need to continue direct funding for our tribal employment

programs. We do not receive funding from the State of South Dakota for these services and we do not receive sufficient tribal TANF

funds to be able to provide the services necessary to move our people from welfare to work. Any reauthorization of the welfare reform

law must provide for the direct funding of tribal employment services.

We need support for tribal employment services at an adequate

level. We support a tribal employment services program that includes the funding we receive from the Native Employment Works

and the Welfare to Work Program and an increase necessary for us

to serve clients with more barriers to employment.

The tribe, under its Child Support Enforcement Program, can

now make non-custodial parents accountable to support their children. However, many need basic education and skills training
18

which will enable them to find and retain employment so they can

provide the needed support. Simply continuing the NEW program

for another five years at its fiscal year 1994 funding level will not

give the tribes the capacity to provide services to non-custodial parents.

We need the ability to integrate all the necessary services into

a single program that makes sense to the tribe and works effectively at the reservation level. The tribe has tried to do this under

Public Law 102–477. The integrated approach is essential to the

tribe’s continued success with welfare reform. Program integration

is a goal of the President’s welfare reform proposal. However, we

and other 477 tribes have been hamstrung by objections raised by

HHS staff to integrate TANF and NEW with our other programs

under a single plan, single budget and single report. The welfare

reauthorization law must include strong language that HHS must

respect our ability to use 477 as a tribal tool for program integration.

We need a requirement in the law that HHS and all other Federal agencies involved must consult with the tribal governments on

regulations and policies governing the various Federal programs.

The tribes cannot afford to have plans undermined by Federal

rules adopted without our input which makes our job impossible.

Part of that goes back to this past year and some of the problems

we have had with HHS. As one of the first tribes to adopt 477, we

came here to Washington to have continued meetings with HHS

and they didn’t show up, much like today. It really puts a burden

on the tribes. A lot of the tribes don’t have the funds to keep traveling to Washington, DC to meet with Federal programs that don’t

show up. All the tribes have spent thousands of dollars, probably

tens of thousands, coming here for no shows on HHS’s part. That

is why I was disappointed today with their lack of participation.

Finally, our tribe has preliminary reviewed Senator Baucus new

bill and we like what we see. We think it moves in the right direction of many of our recommendations. We thank Senator Baucus

and encourage this committee to consider his proposal carefully.

There is more to the statement and you have it on record but I

just wanted to make a few comments before my time is up on a

more personal level. Like the chairman, I also see a lot of our tribal

membership come through my office for pampers, for a tank of gas

or just basic necessities that we don’t look at twice.

Richard Kebel, our TANF program manager, has an office right

across the hall. He has nine of our tribal members working for him

under 477. That is more like a one stop for a tribal member. Where

before they were hitting the different places to go to these different

services, now we have it all in one place, so it makes it better for

them.

As tribal leadership, we see what our tribal members have to live

with every day and I can’t totally blame our tribal membership for

the way it is. I always think the modern day culture is still new

to them, they are still trying to learn how to be—I don’t know if

you want to call it American or civilized. They are still learning

how to work, how to be productive. IF they come from a generation

of I don’t know if you would call it non-workers or genocide or what

we want to call it, but I don’t totally blame our tribal membership
19

for the way they are. They are still getting used to how to work

and how to be Americans I guess you can call it. It is still foreign

to a lot of them. A lot of them still don’t understand a lot of

English, or the American way of how we have to do things and how

the American people want us to be. They don’t know how to do that

yet.

By doing this, by training them to work, by giving them the opportunity to do this, we are going to better integrate them into the

tribal system and the American system.

I appreciate and the tribes appreciates this time to speak to you

directly. I thank Senator Johnson for his comments.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Peters appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Now, may I call upon Ms. Wall–McDonald?

STATEMENT OF TERESA WALL-MCDONALD, SALISH AND

KOOTENAI TRIBES

Ms. WALL-MCDONALD. I am Teresa Wall-McDonald. I am enrolled tribal member of the Salish and Kootenai Tribe in Montana.

I am the director of the tribe’s Department of Human Resources

which included TANF and many of the support services that are

critical to family success.

This morning I thought my casual, outdoorsey, Montana look

might give the Salish and Kootenai testimony an edge over other

presenters, so you will have to tell me if it works. In reality, my

suitcase was lost and I apologize for my informal appearance.

The CHAIRMAN. You look very beautiful.

Ms. WALL-MCDONALD. My friends at Rocky Boy thought I should

sit up here and say, this is what 41 percent unemployment looks

like. [Laughter.]

It is a difficult thing to prepare 14 pages of written testimony

and then be given roughly 5 minutes because TANF is such an important issue to Indian country. I cannot think of a more important

piece of legislation, nor a more important program.

Today, I am representing over 1,800 adults and children who

have received services from our TANF program. We began the program with 180 cases and 600 individuals and now have served 578

cases and 1,800 individuals.

The challenge is that tribal caseloads have grown. We meet the

same work standards as the State and we have fewer resources.

This is grossly unfair. We do the same amount of work and sometimes more with less money.

The second challenge is what do we do after families have

worked hard, obtained a GED, enhanced their skills and there are

no jobs? Indian people are not lazy. Our unemployment rate at Salish and Kootenai is 41 percent. I read the USA newspaper today

and it reported a 6-percent unemployment rate, the highest since

1994. I thought here we are in Montana and we have unemployment rates from 41 percent to 77 percent. The greatest disappointment in Indian country is working hard having a family that

makes positive changes and there are simply no jobs.

We have done a pretty good job with bundling occupations and

leveraging employer support. Out of the 578 cases, 298 have closed
20

and found employment. That is pretty good. The majority of these

jobs have required some sort of employer incentive.

If I was the State of Montana program, I would qualify for a performance bonus when somebody goes to work but under the

present regulations, the tribes don’t qualify for those types of incentives.

When we consider what is most critical to the welfare reform

success it is as follows. You must equalize the funding streams,

allow tribes access to every source of funding the State is eligible

for, allow the tribes to manage and administer food stamps and

medicaid. Families who are struggling need those support services,

so tribes should be able to administer those services in a tribal facility.

Consider waiving the match for high poverty, high unemployment areas for food stamps and medicaid. Make a serious substantial and immediate financial contribution to economic development

now. If there are no jobs in Indian country, welfare reform will fail

and the families will fail.

Increase the tribal setaside for child care. You can’t work if there

is no day care available. We would also like to see you remove the

restrictions on TANF and new funds carryover to allow for any

TANF-related activity. For those tribes that are working hard,

doing well and have TANF carry over, those could become a source

for economic development.

We would also like you to increase the access and funding for

employment and training funds and bring back the competitive

welfare to work grants.

We have analyzed and looked at the bill offered by Senator Baucus. We favor many of the initiatives. It provides solutions and it

is forward thinking and takes a positive step for welfare reform in

Indian country.

Again, we would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing

us to testify and again, I apologize for my informality.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Wall-McDonald appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Wall-McDonald.

If I may now ask a few questions. Chairman Massey, you indicated the State of Arizona withdrew your TANF funds?

Mr. MASSEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Did they also withdraw TANF funds from nonIndians?

Ms. NARCHO. Mr. Chairman, I am Colleen Narcho, executive director for the Department of Social Services which includes the

tribal TANF for white, non-Apache.

The State had appropriated $1 million of TANF moneys to the

19 tribes of Arizona. However, after offering it for 3 years, they are

not going to do that anymore because the moneys are going to be

set into the deficit. These were moneys the tribes could use as incentives for like welfare to work programs.

The CHAIRMAN. Has Arizona stopped welfare programs in the

State?

Ms. Narcho. No; they have not. They stopped the funding that

was allocated for Indian tribes. They are not going to do that anymore.
21

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Peters, you have had some no shows by the

Government?

Mr. PETERS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How many? One is enough but how many?

Mr. PETERS. There have been at least three and today, I was told

they would be here to listen to the testimony, so I have to say four.

They did have one show.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you send me an official letter indicating

the times and dates?

Mr. PETERS. Yes; we can. After one of the no-shows, some of the

tribes did get together and put together a format letter and we will

send that to you.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want a form letter, I want an official letter.

Mr. PETERS. Okay. We will send an official letter from the tribes.

The CHAIRMAN. It just happens by coincidence that I am the senior member of the Appropriations Committee on Health and

Human Services, so I think they will listen to me.

It appears that in every case here, you may have training programs but no jobs. The States control the funds. I have looked over

the Baucus bill and like all measures, it may not be perfect, but

I think it comes closest to addressing many of the problems set

forth in your testimony.

I would suggest that all of you send letters of encouragement and

support to the committee and you can send your letters to Chairman Max Baucus, Senate Finance Committee, Washington, DC

20510. Instead of sending one resolution by the tribal council, send

100 letters. Instead of the NCAI sending just an NCAI resolution,

have every member send a letter because one way constituents indicate interest is by communications.

I would suggest that you begin a writing program. Your letters

do not have to be fancy, and the title of the bill is, ‘‘American Indian Welfare Reform Act,’’ S. 2484 and send your letters to Senator

Max Baucus, chairman, Finance Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. He will be very pleased to receive these letters.

Incidentally, to show you the problems we have, even assuming

the Baucus bill passes unchanged, the amount involved is at least

$635 million. It has to go through the Finance Committee. I do not

serve on that committee but I will do my best. As you know, these

are difficult times for securing additional resources but I think this

should be a high priority.

With that, I would like to thank all of you for participating and

I am going to go back to Rocky Boy one day soon.

Thank you very much, all of you.

May I now call upon the director of Welfare Reform Program,

National Congress of American Indians, Sarah Hicks; the director

of the Michigan Family Independence Agency and president of the

American Public Human Services Association, Doug Howard; the

executive director of the Torres Martinez Tribe TANF of Thermal,

CA, Virginia Hill, accompanied by Apesahnakwat; and the president of the National Indian Child Care Association, Confederated

Tribes of Warm Spring, Julie Quaid; and representing the National

Indian Child Welfare Association of Portland, Terry Cross.

May I now call on Director Hicks.
22

STATEMENT OF SARAH HICKS, DIRECTOR, WELFARE REFORM

PROGRAM, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

Ms. HICKS. Good morning.

I would like to thank you for inviting NCAI to testify on the implementation and reauthorization of the Welfare Reform law and

commend Senator Baucus for the introduction of S. 2484.

My name is Sarah Hicks and I serve as director of the Welfare

Reform Program at NCAI. Over the past 5 years, I have had the

remarkable opportunity to work with tribes throughout the country

on the implementation of State and tribal TANF programs and a

host of related programs.

For over 3 years now, NCAI has facilitated a work-group of

TANF tribes and coordinated a peer learning process that was

mentioned earlier. For the past 2 years, tribes have been spending

considerable time and energy on discussions focused on the reauthorization of this important law.

Through our partnership with the American Public Human Services Association, APHSA, NCAI, and TANF tribes have made considerable headway in finding common ground between States and

tribes on many reauthorization issues. This morning I am here to

share with you three brief themes that I have gathered in my work

from the 36 tribal TANF programs, the many tribes still served by

State programs and a variety of State TANF programs.

First, tribes support welfare reform efforts. The concept of welfare reform resonates with American Indian Alaska Native tribes.

Tribes are in favor of individual responsibility and work coupled

with appropriate community supports. Proponents of addressing

issues comprehensively with a whole systems approach and looking

holistically at family needs, tribes show a strong preference for the

flexibility to facilitate locally designed and administered programs

that fit the unique needs of their communities.

In many ways, the welfare reform law provides tribes with a

good blueprint for change but as evidenced by high poverty rates

and below average work participation rates, we would have to say

there is not enough change in Indian country.

This leads me to my second point. The key to meaningful reform

in tribal communities is flexibility for States and tribes. Too often

welfare reform is thought of as encompassing only TANF and too

often tribal options around welfare reform implementation are seen

by both tribes and States as either a tribe receiving Federal funds

for the administration of TANF or the tribe continuing to receive

TANF benefits and services from the State.

In actuality, there are a whole range of options between the decision to TANF or not to TANF. The flexibility will be critical to the

potential of many States with large Indian populations to meet the

proposed increased work requirements and work participation

rates. Tribal TANF programs also need to maintain the flexibility

that we have, the flexibility to define our service area, service population and work activities, as well as to negotiate work requirements and work participation rates.

As you may be aware, tribes in Alaska face a unique limitation

in their flexibility of TANF. The current law gives authority to administer TANF to the 12 Alaska Native Regional Non-profit Cor-
23

porations instead of directly funding the federally recognized tribes

in Alaska.

This has a dramatic impact on tribal governments because Alaska’s 227 tribes make up about 40 percent of all tribes in the United

States. Additionally, a second provision requires tribal TANF programs in Alaska to be comparable to State operated TANF programs. These provisions hinder self determination and the ability

of tribes in Alaska to make tribal specific program decisions. The

comparability requirement in particular flies in the face of the concept of block grants as well as tribal sovereignty.

My third point is that the notion of welfare reform is really much

broader than TANF. TANF is just a flexible funding stream. In

fact, we should think about welfare reform in Indian country as

having four components: Financial assistance programs for poor

and fragile families, including TANF, child support and foster care;

related support services that enable recipients to get and keep a job

such as child care, transportation, mental health care, substance

abuse treatment, and other needed support systems; third, job

training programs to build skills for work, qualifying recipients for

available jobs; and fourth, tribal economic development to provide

recipients jobs at which they can earn a living wage and become

self sufficient.

The importance of economic development, as mentioned earlier,

to the success of welfare reform implementation cannot be overstated. Without jobs, welfare reform will fail. A two-pronged approach is necessary. First, tribes need more flexibility in using

their existing resources. Legislation like S. 3443, the Indian Tribal

Development Consolidated Funding Act, is one such tool.

Second, tribes need additional resources, both for economic infrastructure, transportation systems and technical assistance for concrete activities to create a more business friendly environment on

reservations, and job creation through the expansion of tribal authority to issue private activity bonds for reservation-based economic activity.

In closing, there is no doubt that tribal TANF programs have

been successful in creatively addressing the many challenges they

face. However, to really bring the benefits of welfare reform to Indian country, reauthorization must address four primary issues.

First, building tribal TANF infrastructure by providing resources

for tribal TANF startup, management information systems, and

staff training.

Second, assessing sufficient ongoing TANF administration resources either through providing incentives to States for adequate

State contributions to tribal TANF programs or through making a

Federal commitment for full funding of tribal TANF programs.

Third, establishing equity for tribal TANF through access to the

same resources State programs enjoy such as the high performance

bonus, the contingency funds, technical assistance and research

dollars.

Fourth, economic development in Indian country with increased

flexibility to use existing resources and increased resources for development infrastructure and job creation.

Thank you very much.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Hicks appears in appendix.]
24

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Hicks.

May I call upon Director Howard.

STATEMENT OF DOUG HOWARD, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY AND PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you

and the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify

today here on behalf American Public Human Services Association

on this very important issue.

Similar to the way the broader TANF program has been implemented, tribal TANF has also been implemented in a variety of

ways throughout the country with really no one model of State/tribal interaction or coordination. Although over 170 tribes and consortiums have taken on the administration in 15 States, there really

aren’t many additional State contacts and contracts with individual

tribes which either provide the opportunity or directly provide services to Native Americans through their State or county TANF program.

I would like to highlight today in my brief comments the opportunity we think TANF has created for States and tribes to come

together and reevaluate the delivery of services in Indian country.

For our Association of State Human Service Commissioners and

TANF Directors, the dialog and discussions we have been having

with NCAI over the last year have really helped open the door for

a broader and new working relationship between our members and

NCAI. Quite frankly, it has been very educational for my colleagues and I. I think we really do see great opportunities to build

successes for each other out of this.

In December, APHSA, and NCAI came together for 1 day long

meeting to identify some of the issues around TANF reauthorization. Since then we have formed a joint work group and had several in-depth conference calls and discussions on TANF legislative

proposals. In general, I think it is important to highlight that when

State and tribal TANF administrators come together, we have

found may not walking in knowing if we would, but walking out

finding we really had very similar concerns around what was needed for success. If I could boil those down into two key themes, and

I think you have heard those today, those would be flexibility and

adequate funding.

We also agree there may be some additional issues that face tribal TANF programs. It may be unique to tribal TANF that maybe

States have not directly faced before.

On the issue of the Federal commitment, we generally agree I

think that there really is a need for greater Federal Government

support to support the tribes in administering successful TANF

programs. Most tribes starting their TANF programs really have

little or no established infrastructure and don’t have that Federal

support to create it.

You have heard that today and I know even in my own State,

we have 12 federally recognized tribes and 4 historic State tribes.

Based on our discussions with them, we think there are probably

only two that would say they actually have what they believe

would be an adequate information management system plus staff-
25

ing. Quite frankly, one of those is making subsidy payments to

members of the tribes in such a way that they probably have a

very small TANF population. That really limits the opportunities

for the other tribes to do that.

Capacity grants, technical assistance and State MOE dollars

have been evolved in work between States and tribes. It is not consistent around the country. I think if you talked to all of us you

would hear that in some States the relationship is very strong and

in other cases, you would hear there is clearly room for improvement. These arrangements exist on a State by State basis.

Short of the opportunity to get full funding, which I know is a

challenge, there really are some things we can focus on. Some I

just mentioned. One would be specific grants around the capacity

building to build that infrastructure. The second would be around

the technical assistance to help get the knowledge and best practices in place; and third, a theme you have heard today around economic development.

A second opportunity is to try and create an adjustment in the

tribal TANF Grants Program to recognize any growth in size or requirements for additional resources.

Finally, and I think it has been suggested, Federal incentives

back to the States to ensure the States are contributing and supporting the tribal efforts in the TANF program and in other employment-related programs would be advantageous.

Another area that NCAI and APHSA came to agreement on was

that the Federal Government has not always been able to support

an environment that fosters a collaborative relationship. We think

there really can be a better relationship among all three levels of

government and are committed to work on that.

We would also encourage mutual consultation and development

of State and tribal TANF plans. I think this tends to go on in most

States but on the State side, to ensure we are not making duplicate

plans when tribe may be making plans for a new tribal TANF program would avoid duplication of effort. I would hope that States

would be in a position to contribute to their planning.

Another area of agreement between NCAI and APHSA is the

high joblessness issue and the need for economic development. You

have heard a lot of statistics on the unemployment rates today, so

I won’t bother repeating them, but I think the numbers speak for

themselves. It is clearly a challenge in both their ability to meet

Federal work participation requirements, thinking about time limits and the kinds of triggers and exemptions you might think about

around those time limits and work participation rates.

The final subject matter I want to touch on, while slightly outside the scope of TANF, I feel it is important because it gets back

to strengthening families. I think the tribes, States and everyone

else would speak that whether you are doing work in the Indian

nation, doing work in a local government or State government, this

really needs to be about strengthening families.

This subject area is the area of title IV–E funding. one of the

things we have worked with a lot in Michigan is child welfare services with tribes. We have some great success stories but we think

there are some opportunities to directly flow some funding to the
26

tribes and they could perhaps integrate some of their tribal TANF

and child welfare services.

In closing, I would like emphasize that APHSA believes this reauthorization is just a first step between tribes and the States in

a long relationship of working so that Native American communities can experience the kind of success they deserve. I hope that

cooperation and collaboration can continue to be the theme we

have.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to

any questions you might have.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Howard appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Howard.

Now may I recognize Director Hill.

STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

TORRES MARTINEZ TRIBAL TANF, ACCOMPANIED BY

APESAHNAKWAT, PUBLIC RELATIONS, TRIBAL TANF, CA

Ms. HILL. Good morning.

My name is Virginia Hill. I am executive director of the Torres

Martinez Tribal TANF Program located in Southern California

near the Salton Sea. We serve nine tribes in Riverside County and

we are the first tribe to serve a major urban Indian population in

Los Angeles County for a total of 5,358 families.

Today, I am representing the three tribal consortiums in California—Torres Martinez, the Southern California Tribal Chairmen

Association, comprised of 17 tribes in San Diego County and one

tribe in Santa Barbara, the Bishop Consortium of three tribes and

the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California for a total of 32 tribes.

We provide the following unique services of the four areas of tribal TANF. First, cash assistance. We have an EBT system that we

have developed and are currently working out the kinks. We require substance abuse testing and sanctions for nonparticipation

but using a voucher system which makes sure the children are not

left out. We have a clothing allowance for school aged children on

TANF. We provide training and education and have computer labs

at the eight sites to teach basic computer skills. We have long distance learning and tele-conferencing and are promoting small business and entrepreneurship with our recipients. We propose to serve

the non-custodial parents with training and education.

As far as teen pregnancy prevention, we have a baby think it

over program, we have pregnancy aprons at both the male youth

and the females have to wear. We have a cash for good grades incentive to keep the kids in school, $50 for every semester for a C

average, B average is $75 and $100 for A. We are also able to track

the students if they are falling below to help them with tutoring.

We are having our ninth annual Indian Child Welfare Conference next week and we have our teen youths from Los Angeles

area that are going to put on a skit called ‘‘Teen Discovery Dating.’’ We have a marriage promotion officer who is doing research into

customs and traditions with the elders of the Cahuilla Tribe and

are also looking to change the county language to allow tribal definition of marriages. Our program is called Snagging for Life. So

far, we have had two marriages, one near miss, a couples con-
27

ference, and we are planning a singles dance at the end of this

month.

We promote traditional marriages by providing a maximum of $1,500 toward birdsingers traditional dress and traditional food if

they are married in the traditional way and also a $2,000-marriage

bonus but they can only use it one time.

The CHAIRMAN. One time.

Ms. HILL. We are anticipating starting fatherhood activities

shortly.

All these programs are possible because the State of California

provides 100 percent matching funds.

Three days ago, the California Tribal TANF programs met with

the State Department of Social Services to brainstorm on incentives for all States to provide 100 percent match to all tribes if they

chose to administer a TANF program. This concept is new and tribal organizations and States have not had a chance to review. Unofficially, the State of California supports this. Of course this has to

come from the Governor.

Currently, there are 36 approved tribal TANF programs and

there and there are 36 pending programs. We believe the major

reason more tribes do not assume TANF is because of lack of a

State match. The State incentive program we are proposing is basically first maintaining Federal funding and offering States a credit

that will offset any impact that may be imposed on a State for noncompliance with Federal regulations at a rate of $2 of credit for

every dollar contributed to a tribal TANF program.

Another area I would like to address is the food stamp and Medicaid problems. We are proposing direct funding for both programs

in a one-stop shop. We have a resolution passed by NCAI in 1998

that supports this concept. Right now we are proposing a demonstration with the Department of Agriculture.

Three years ago, we tried working with the Southern California

Tribal Chairmen Association. We proposed a demonstration project

and were turned down for three reasons. Basically, they thought

we didn’t have the infrastructure capability, we had a low caseload,

only proposed 600 families to serve and it required a 25-percent

match.

There is recent and ongoing documentation verifying that Indians and their families are under-represented in both food stamp

and medicaid programs. Tribal TANF participants must fill out one

application at the tribal TANF site on the reservation, travel 50 to

100 miles to the nearest welfare office to fill out a similar application for food stamps and medicaid. We are talking about four additional questions for food stamps and six additional for medicaid.

Exposure to non-traditional food has resulted in high diabetes in

Indian communities and at present, most commodity programs on

Indian reservations are successful because they are easily accessed

by tribal people. There was a study done by Southern California Indian Center a few years ago that showed at the end of the month

when the diabetes patients ran out of money, they were using food

commodity and their sugar levels went up.

When a program comes to an Indian reservation, the community

takes full ownership and watches it closely. We know there are

many considerations with the fraud of food stamps right now.
28

Another area we would like to address is the waiver of all matching fund requirements for all welfare-related programs, including

the Food Stamp Program which requires a 25-percent match, the

Access Transportation Program which requires a 50-percent match;

the Foster Care Direct Fund which require a 25-percent match;

and the Child Support Enforcement which requires a 25-percent

match. All are disincentive to tribes to take on these programs.

I had the opportunity to look at the proposed Baucus bill and I

address the first issue regarding $120 million set aside for tribes.

I have some problems with that. First of all, this is $120 million

of new moneys, the percentage with the State MOE support would

be funded has not yet been defined, and it is a possibility that the

tribes could be funded at 80 percent. In California, we receive 100

percent.

The proposed language limits the number of tribes to apply.

What happens when these funds run out? Since we are receiving

100 percent, if we apply to the same amount because of the California deficit, we assume the State may say we need to go to the Feds

to get our MOE share. If this is done, then California and Nevada

tribes will take $40 million off the top, the Navajo Tribe would take

$20 million which would leave $40 million for distribution with the

other tribes.

The proposed language further limits the number of participating

tribes because in order for new tribes to be able to access a portion

of the proposed funding, lobbying will be required to increase the

amount of appropriated funds. In addition, the proposed language

did not address tribes needing to amend their plans to include new

tribes or service area.

If cutbacks occur across the board, all tribes will be penalized regardless of State MOE support capability.

Also, would this be on a first come, first served basis? The State

of California supports and backs our concerns, unofficially of

course.

Also, access, I would like to include where they require HHS to

convene a new advisory committee on the status of non-reservation

Indians, I would like to include language that would include reservation-based Indians not being served by a tribal TANF program.

Finally, I would like to invite you to the first annual Tribal

TANF Best Practices Training that is going to be held in Los Angeles on May 24 and 25. At that conference, we will address the lack

of a national forum for tribal welfare reform.

Finally, I would like to leave you with this, the words of Tribal

Chairwoman Mary Belardo, ‘‘Tribal TANF is our people helping our

people.’’

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Hill appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Director Hill.

Does Mr. Apesahnakwat wish to testify?

Mr. APESAHNAKWAT. Thank you very much.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to say a few words before

the committee this morning.

As you know, I have been the chairman of the Menominee Tribe

for more than eight terms, spanning a 25-year period. I am Public
29

Relations Director for the Torres Martinez TANF Project in Los

Angeles. I still serve on the tribal council, however.

I have to tell you that much of what you have heard here today

is what I have heard all my life and I am sure you have longer

than me as you have been in the Senate for 42 years. This is a sad

refrain and continues to be. Since my employment with the Torres

Martinez Project, I have come to understand and be able to focus

that a lot of tribes, including my own, did not participate in the

Tribal TANF Program because of the disparity and the hostility in

States in which they reside.

It is ironic that my Governor is now the director of the Secretary

of the Department of Health and Human Services here in Washington and we can’t even get to meet with him or the representatives

interested in fixing the tribal TANF.

As Director Hill indicated, we have proffered a formula solution

for the matching funds of the MOE and the matching funds of

States because in order for us to get a bill through we understand

we have to placate States and give them an incentive large enough.

Senator those penalties for noncompliance with 14 regulations in

the statutes accrue to over 43 percent of the total grant that States

receive, 21 percent directly for work participation. That is an incredibly significant number. Our formula says for every dollar they

contribute to tribes, there will be $2 on $1 offset on these penalties

assessed to them.

Moreover, if we are going to do that, I will give you an example.

In South Dakota, they have indicated there was 80 percent of

TANF recipients who are Indians. If they allowed those tribes to

go to Washington and get the financing to run a tribal TANF, that

eliminates the State’s concern for delivery and service to those people under the current administration and saves them that 80 percent.

Under our formula, when they match that, that accrues to 140

percent. My math may be a little bit off, but 130 to 140 percent,

these are credits they receive so that any of these hard to reach,

hard to service areas such as reservations are, they will not be penalized or their grants will not be penalized, so this formula doesn’t

require new money. Yet it tweaks the already existing program to

require our motivate States with an incentive to service tribes with

tribal TANF because it is we, as you said at the beginning of this

hearing. We may have the solution for Indian country because we

work and live there, we grow there, we are tribal leaders who

struggled with this dilemma for all our time.

We would ask this committee to review this proposal we have

put forward and we have had much success. As you know, there

is a House companion bill offered by Congressman Herger from

California. We have been taking this formula around to the House

and Senate side in the hopes of familiarizing our Senators and

Representatives in support of this formula.

We think a lot of the tribes and a lot of the organizations who

testified here today, we have talked to them but they had already

written their testimony and submitted it. We would ask to give this

formula a very close look because we like Senator Baucus’ bill and

we think if we supplant the new money and let 580 Federally recognized tribes fight over that $100,000, this is a much better alter-
30

native that works with already existing money, gives the States the

incentive and motivation to cooperate and work along with tribes

so that the objective of this legislation was to provide assistance to

all Americans for welfare to work and this would make this initiative work.

I thank you for this time to be able to impart some of my concerns on this formula.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

President Quaid.

STATEMENT OF JULIE QUAID, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INDIAN

CHILD CARE ASSOCIATION, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF

WARM SPRINGS

Ms. QUAID. Good morning.

My name is Julie Quaid and I am a member of the Confederated

Tribes of Warm Springs, Warm Springs, OR. I have worked for my

tribe for 22 years in the area of early childhood education and child

care. My background is in education.

I am also the chairperson of the National Indian Child Care Association. The Association is the representative body of tribal

grantees of the Child Care and Development Block Grant; 262

grantees representing more than 500 tribes and Native organizations received Child Care and Development Block Grant funds in

2002.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to join you today

to share comments from the National Indian Child Care Association about the importance of quality child care in Indian country.

We appreciate your commitment to ensuring that the needs of our

tribal children and families are not overlooked during the reauthorization of welfare reform legislation and the Child Care Development Block Grant Act.

The U.S. Government affirmed its trust responsibility toward

American Indians and Native Alaskans and Hawaiians through direct funding of the Child Care and Development Block Grant to

tribal governments supporting tribal sovereignty and local control

of programs for tribal and native citizens.

Tribes must continue to administer these programs to meet the

unique needs of tribal communities. As the Child Care and Development Block Grant is reauthorized, we urge you, the members of

the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, to demonstrate your leadership in ensuring that all provisions in proposed child care reauthorization bills will ensure direct access to funds for tribes.

Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996, new investments in child

care have given tribes the opportunity to expand their child care

programs. We find, however, that these investments are not sufficient to meet the needs of Indian families. Nationally, statistics indicate that only one in seven children eligible for child care assistance is receiving that help.

The Child Care Coordinator from a tribe in California indicates

the tribe has only enough funding to operate a child care facility

for 15 children, yet close to 400 children in the community could

benefit from a tribally-operated child care program.
31

With the poverty rate approaching 50 percent in Indian country,

and nearly 54 percent of Indian children being born to unwed

mothers, child care funding is critical to families who are working

and transitioning off public assistance to pursue work and educational opportunities. Helping pay for child care is critical to some

low income families’ ability to obtain and retain employment and

support their families while they work. Thirty percent of tribal grantees receive less than $60,000 annually to provide child care services; 45 percent of tribes receive less

than $100,000 in Federal child care funding. With current funding

levels, tribes are struggling to provide financial assistance to low

income families and ensure that child are in much needed quality

child care environments.

The cost of care nationally averages $4,000 to $10,000 per year

for a pre-school child. It is evident that current funding is significantly inadequate to meet the needs of the Indian community.

Tribes currently receive 1 to 2 percent of the Child Care and Development Block Grant funds. The number of tribes participating in

CCDBG has increased from 226 in 1994 to 262 in 2002. Tribal child

counts continue to increase each year as tribal populations grow.

The 1995 U.S. Census report of population projections indicates

the American Indian population is expected to make up an increasing share of the U.S. population. As the population continues to

grow, an increasing number of Indian families will be in need of

child care services for without adequate child care, which enables

parents to work, the aim of self sufficiency for all types of families

will not become a reality. An increase in the tribal setaside is essential for continued services.

Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma is currently providing child care

assistance to over 3,000 working families annually. In fiscal year

2001, the Cherokee Nation’s monthly family caseload increased by

an average of 26 percent. Current funding levels will not allow the

continuation of the same level of services. The result is tribes will

reduce child care service.

The tribal child care administrators are currently in the process

of developing new eligibility guidelines for families raising income

guidelines and family share for the cost of care so that they will

not be forced to develop a waiting list for families needing support

to maintain employment. This places a huge financial burden on

families who are already struggling to make ends meet. These families are the working poor.

Unlike States which rely heavily on transfer funds from TANF

and use funding from the State tax base to supplement child care

services, most tribes rely solely on the CCDBG for child care funds.

Without additional funding, tribal governments will be unable to

continue to provide assistance to eligible families and to ensure

that all families have access to quality child care.

Already tribes have been forced to make cuts in tribal programs.

A tribe in New Mexico had to eliminate all school age care last

year due to limited funds. Even though they gave advance notice

to families, alternate care options were not available to this community. Many of those children who had been in appropriate school

age environments became latch key kids or were placed in substandard care.
32

The U.S. Government through the Constitution, treaties, Supreme Court decisions, executive orders, and existing Federal policies recognized the right of tribes to self govern. In 1996 during the

reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant,

law was enacted which is in direct violation of tribal sovereign

powers. The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, as

amended, states:

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with tribes and tribal organizations, shall develop minimum health and safety standards.

The National Indian Child Care Association strongly supports the assurance that

Indian children are in healthy and safe environments. However, tribal governments

must be the final authority in determining and developing the contents of the standards by which the child care facilities under their jurisdiction are governed.

The U.S. Government allows all 50 States the discretion of developing their own health and safety standards, yet has chosen to impose standards for tribal governments. Not only is this an imposition on tribal sovereignty, it is unrealistic to believe that one set

of standards would be appropriate for 262 tribal grantees ranging

in geographic location from Alaska to Florida.

The National Indian Child Care Association advocacy agenda for

2002 details additional provisions of reauthorization supported by

the membership. The agenda includes the top seven recommendations voted on by the membership and I am requesting to submit

the paper as part of the testimony.

Although our agenda did not speak directly to the provisions of

quality care, we recognize there has been growing research and national attention focused on the impact of children’s early experiences and their ability to learn and succeed when they enter

school. With 65 percent of women with children under the age of

6 in the workforce, an increasing number of children are spending

their early years in child care. As poverty rates in Indian country

approach 50 percent, Indian children are at greater risk of poorer

educational performance. Children of low income families score significantly lower on reading, math and vocabulary tests when compared with other children.

Quality child care experiences can significantly impact the abilities of Indian children to be successful later in life. Yet, with limited funding, tribes must often make choices between affordability

and quality of child care for low income families. With insufficient

CCDBG dollars, we must choose between offering financial assistance to low income families who need help paying for care or supporting activities to enhance the quality of child care and ensuring

our children are in programs which provide for their positive development.

Tribes are currently required to spend a minimum of 4 percent

of funds on quality activities. We use these funds to monitor facilities to ensure that children are in safe environments, provide information and referral to parents in need of child care, train child

care staff and offer grants so that child care facilities can make

needed improvements to meet standards of care and other activities to improve the quality of care for Indian children.

Sufficient funding should be available to help tribes ensure that

Indian children are in high quality care and not choose between

quality and the cost to families.
33

I thank you for this opportunity to share with you the challenges

that face tribal communities as we put forth efforts to ensure that

tribal families have the necessary tools to become self sufficient.

Child care is a critical component in these efforts. Funding must

be increased to help more low income Indian families afford quality

child care and to work toward improving the quality of the child

care providers which is critical to our children’s development and

future success.

We ask that you acknowledge the sovereignty of tribal and Native governments and the U.S. trust responsibility as you make the

important decision to support and fund child care.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Quaid appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, President Quaid.

Now may I recognize Mr. Cross.

STATEMENT OF TERRY CROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ASSOCIATION

Mr. CROSS. Thank you.

My name is Terry Cross and I am the executive director of the

National Indian Child Welfare Association. I am very grateful for

being asked to be on this panel today.

You have my prepared remarks but I want to share some very

important information with you. The reason I am here is to ask for

the support for Indian children and families, the most vulnerable

of the people that we are talking about here today.

I want to urge the committee to support a correction to a longstanding oversight that actually does harm to our children and for

this committee to take leadership and to thank you for your leadership on the title IV–E, Indian provisions that have been proposed.

The members of this committee signing onto S. 550, you, Senator

Inouye, Senator Campbell, Senator McCain, Senator Johnson, Senator Wellstone, Senator Akaka, and Senator Dominici. We thank

you all for your leadership in signing onto S. 550.

This is an important piece of legislation. For too long, our Indian

children have been left behind. Title IV–E of the Social Security

Act, also known as the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Act,

is the portion of Social Security that reimburses States for the cost

of children in foster care of income eligible children. It also picks

up the cost of some things like independent living and the adoption

assistance programs.

That funding stream was put into place in 1980 but due to an

oversight in the original drafting of the legislation, tribes were

omitted from that funding stream. As a result, what is supposed

to be an entitlement for all eligible children is not an entitlement

for Indian children on reservations under the custody of a tribal

court.

The only way those children can get access to those funds is

through tribal/State agreements. We have learned over several

years of trying to get those agreements in place, that they are not

workable. Those agreements treat tribes as if they were licensed

child placing agencies rather than governments. Most of those

agreements pass through only the foster care payment to the foster
34

parent and not the administrative or the training dollars. That is

problematic.

Probably the most important thing that I tell you today is what

the impact of this is on our children and families. I will give you

an example. From Alaska from the Metlakatla Tribe, the tribe recently had an 11 year old boy whose mental health problems were

so severe that he needed to be placed. They had no trained foster

parents for therapeutic foster home. They had relatives who

thought they might be able to provide care, but none of them felt

they could protect this child from himself.

The tribe’s only option was jail for this 11 year old boy so they

could watch over him and make sure he wasn’t going to harm himself or to send him far away and turn the case over to the State

which would further complicate his mental health problems. There

wasn’t a good solution but there is a solution in this legislation.

Tribal access to title IV–E would allow for training to foster parents. It would allow for special rates to be paid to people to do

therapeutic care. It would allow case workers to be trained to develop those resources for kids and to develop options.

In another situation, Navajo child, 3 years old, sexually abused,

special needs child, none of her relatives would take her because

of the nature of the sexual abuse. The tribal Child Welfare Department was able to find a single mom who would take care of her

with no foster care payment because the tribe doesn’t have access

to any dollars to pay a foster care maintenance payment to a family. That 3-year old stayed in that home for 1 year and during that

period that relationship grew and that foster parent wanted to

adopt. So the child was moving toward adoption when that mom

lost her job and could no longer provide care because she couldn’t

care for this child without resources, so the child had to be

moved—a tragic experience in an already troubled child’s life.

The solution is in this legislation, direct funding to tribes. The

foster care maintenance payments, rates for foster care parents to

be able to take care of children with special needs and the services

the tribes can provide to families in helping knit together resources.

I want to tell you about Janet Gunderson at North Dakota, the

Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold. Janet is a social worker

there. A few years ago she was asked if she would temporarily take

an infant who was medically fragile, a member of the tribe there,

and she agreed to do so, thinking it was just temporary. Well, little

children have a way of creating relationships with people who take

care of them and Janet fell in love with Jordan and decided she

wanted to keep her in her home despite the medical problems and

moved toward adoption.

The placement had been done by the county, the county favored

the adoption. Custody was transferred to the tribal court and the

tribal adoption was put in place but when Janet went back to the

county for access to adoption assistance, she was told no, the tribe

didn’t have access to that program and because the adoption was

done in tribal court, it didn’t qualify for adoption assistance. Janet

had to try to find private medical insurance to cover an already existing problem for her new child.
35

Tribal operation of adoption assistance programs are essential if

we are going to guarantee permanence for children.

I also want to tell you about a child in the Siletz Tribe in Oregon.

Oregon does have a title IV–E agreement with the Siletz Tribe but

it only pays the foster care payment. Unfortunately, the tribe experienced a traumatic need in their social services to reach program

dollars and so tribal child welfare services were cut and funds were

channelled into a program to deal with some very serious issues

around youth suicide.

The child welfare caseload was picked up by inexperienced workers working in social services eligibility who had no training in

child welfare and there was no money to hire a caseworker; 1 year

later, tribal council discovered through many complaints from the

community that several of the children in the caseload had not

seen a caseworker in over 1 year.

This is not the way to run child welfare. It is also not conscionable for one group of children in the Nation because of the nature of where they live and that they are members of tribal communities under the custody of tribal courts that they are excluded

from the rights and benefits and the funding to support their needs

that all other children in the Nation have access to.

Why are we talking about it here at welfare reform? It is clear

that the intent of welfare reform included the well being of children

in the title IV–E system. The original legislation in 1996 says: ‘‘In

order for States to receive TANF block grants, they have to operate

title IV–E.’’

The connection is clear but in that original legislation, there was

not the political will to add Indian children to that formula. We

think this is the time and we think this is the vehicle.

We commend this committee for its attention to this issue and

we thank Senator Baucus for including title IV–E legislation in his

bill, also including the title 20 provisions that are so important to

our families, as well as those provisions that would help build capacity in our tribes to run these programs. This is essential legislation, this is about survival, this is about children growing up in

families they can call their own and we really thank you for the

opportunity to bring this to your attention today.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Cross appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cross.

Listening to the testimony here brought to mind many issues

that you touched upon. One, for example, sovereignty, only one of

you mentioned sovereignty but the issue before us that is the most

challenging that this committee has ever faced is sovereignty. Sovereignty is being very deliberately eroded, not by the Congress, not

by the executive branch, but by the Supreme Court.

At one time, Indian country was able to look upon the Supreme

Court as the saving grace, the sanctuary. Today, it has somehow

changed. If you look at the decisions over the past 20 years, you

will find that things have changed. Since Supreme Court decisions

are usually read by lawyers and special interest groups, the general public is not aware of these changes. Very few people ever

challenge Supreme Court decisions, and many think the Supreme

Court is the voice of God.
36

Well, I have had several meetings with Indian leaders and they

are convinced that this is the most dangerous challenge they have

ever faced.

Second, it seems apparent that the plans we had in providing

funds and grants to be authorized and administered by the States

may work in some cases if the State organization or the government is not only knowledgeable but sensitive to Indian problems

but not all States operate that way. So the measures we will be

considering will provide to the extent possible and feasible direct

funding to the tribes instead of going through the States.

Third, it takes a little while for all of us to catch on, especially

when it concerns children. This might seem strange but up to 10

years ago, by the application of our laws, children were looked

upon as little adults. As a result, even in the medical profession,

if you looked at all the ambulances 10 years ago, the equipment

they had was equipment for adults. You cannot shove a medical instrument down a little throat, especially if the instrument is made

for a huge adult throat.

Finally, the Federal Government recognized that. It took us 190

years to realize that children are not little adults, they are babies.

All your discussions reminded me of my other assignment. I am

chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee. As you know,

all of the men and women in uniform are volunteers, so the matter

of recruitment and retaintion becomes a matter of major concern.

In order to do that, we now find it necessary to have day care centers, so every military installation has a day care center; every

camp has a day care center. We have places to train mothers, we

have centers for exercising. The men say we need a gym. These

things were not provided in the past.

It may interest you to know that Walter Reed Hospital, which is

located a few miles from here, is the flagship of the U.S. Army hospital system and 17 percent of the beds are occupied by soldiers.

The rest are occupied by dependents. To put it another way, when

I was in the service 60 years ago, World War II, the regiments

throughout the land averaged 24 percent of those who served in the

Armed Forces had dependents, 76 percent were without dependents. They were all young kids. Today, it is the reverse, 76 percent

have dependents, 24 percent do not have dependents. So there are

more gynecologists than orthopedic surgeons, more pediatric surgeons than ophthalmologists.

The military is facing the facts of life. It took them a little while

but we hope to catch-up with them and in the area of welfare reform in Indian country, the Baucus bill I think has answers to

some of our problems. Mr. Cross mentioned a very important

phrase, ‘‘political will.’’ There are many ways of indicating political

will and I tried to suggest to you that you all write in, not just a

mimeographed resolution or a mimeographed card. Spend 5 minutes, take out a sheet of paper, use a pencil or pen and write out

a note: ‘‘Dear Senator Baucus, you have a good bill here, I support

it, we need it, sincerely yours.’’

That will mean more than an NCAI resolution, believe me. The

resolutions are important but if they receive letters from their constituents, that will make it much more important.
37

With that, we would like to submit questions to you if we may.

I have about 5 minutes left.

Ms. Hicks, you had some suggestions for the reauthorization of

the welfare reform law. Would you suggest any limitations? Let me

explain. Statistics can be misleading. According to the latest GAO

study of unemployment in reservations, it averages roughly 50 percent.

Ms. HICKS. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. But then on the other hand, at one extreme you

have tribes with 92 percent unemployment and perhaps on another

reservation there is no unemployment. There are a few very

wealthy tribes. Should there be a cap, a limit?

Ms. HICKS. In terms of the joblessness exemption that is in the

law right now? Tribes have put a variety of proposals on the table

and there is a lot of discussion about what the appropriate rate

might be and to some extent arguing about whether it should be

30 percent or 20 percent is arbitrary, it makes very little difference

to the people in those communities whether their joblessness rate

is 30 percent or 20 percent, it is still just as hard to find a job. The

realities of their life there in terms of their family income and poverty rates in those communities, the support services available are

all negligible if you are looking at a difference like that.

There are some meaningful ways to get around the numbers

game, to talk about things other than just what the joblessness

rate is. Certainly that is one way to look at it, to try and have a

target, kind of a joblessness rate, and that is useful.

I think on the other hand what tribes are really concerned about,

the bottomline, is that for people who are meeting all the requirements of their program, for people complying with their individual

responsibility plan, who are going to their substance abuse treatment, meeting with their case managers, for people doing everything we ask of them but there just isn’t a job, it is really not fair,

not fair to expect people to work in those communities when they

are doing everything else that has been asked of them.

Certainly we have learned from history, from various policies

that it is not appropriate, nor desirable, to force people to leave reservations but, to the extent we can provide the services in our own

communities and have people comply with those services, maybe

that is a better way to think about how to address the situation

of compliance with programs. The intention is to rethink some of

the issues around time limits and when it is appropriate to expect

people to go to work. It may be more appropriate to really look at

what people are doing in those communities, what kind of activities

are available and if people are doing everything we asked of them.

The CHAIRMAN. One of the things you mentioned was food

stamps. Is Indian country willing to accept liability for any additional cost of the food stamp program administration and be subject to the same penalties that States are subjected to?

Ms. HILL. Yes; we are. We thoroughly researched the issue of

fraud and we have decided that yes, we can handle that. Also, we

looked at what the administration cost for 600 families would be

and it is less than $500,000, just for the admin cost. That does not

include the cost for the benefit as well. I have a copy of the pro-
38

posed administration plan but I didn’t bring the policies and procedures part of it which is about 170 pages which I will get to you.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Quaid, the committee has begun studies on

early childhood education. I am sorry we did not know about your

interest in this but we had many witnesses in a hearing we held

an that subject in April. We are of the belief now that education

begins even before birth and we are trying our best to make certain

that type of program applies not only in urban areas but also on

reservations. So we will do our very best.

Ms. QUAID. Thank you. Many of the tribes enjoy program funding from HHS through Head Start and Early Head Start and MCH

programs. I think the key is really tying all those together in a holistic way to look at the entire health and wellness of the whole

family. We have always enjoyed a lot of cooperation from the Child

Care Bureau in exercising the flexibility that we have had in child

care in developing quality. One of the greatest changes they made

during the life of the first PRWORA was the ability to renovate

and construct facilities. That has made a lot of difference in Indian

country and provided more quality child care slots for kids and of

course contributing to the development of each child and also meeting the special needs of kids who are disabled or in foster care, or

are adopted. A lot of flexibility is allowed in the child care development plan for tribes to address the needs of all the children in the

community and all the families. So thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Apesahnakwat, you spoke of your proposal.

May I request that you submit that in writing to us because I have

not seen your proposal.

Mr. APESAHNAKWAT. Yes, sir; we dropped it off with Janet

Erickson, in your office, so yes, sir, we will.

The CHAIRMAN. She has not given it to me yet.

With that, I would like to thank all of you for joining us this

morning. It has been a good morning as far as I am concerned. I

wish we could spend more time but we have other assignments this

afternoon.

I will keep open the record for 4 weeks. If you wish to submit

addendums, further testimony, or if you want to make corrections,

please feel free to do so. We will be submitting additional questions

to you all if we may.

Thank you very much and with that, thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
(39)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PERRY R. AHSOGEAK, VICE PRESIDENT OF PROGRAMS, COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is Perry R. Ahsogeak. I am the Vice President of Programs for the

Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. an Alaska Native non-profit organization that provides services within the boundaries of the Municipality of Anchorage and seven (7)

surrounding Alaska Native villages. The Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. administers

Federal and State social services programs to the Alaska Natives and Native Americans that reside within our designated service area. Thank you for the opportunity

to provide testimony on this very important legislation. I will focus my remarks on

the following three issues; the need for a new Tribal TANF Improvement Fund, the

need for a Tribal Employment Services Program and an increase in the tribal setaside within the Child Care Development Funds.

State governments have benefited from decades of Federal investment in their administrative capacity, particularly in their information management systems. The

tribes who elected to administer TANF did not have the benefit of the same degree

of administrative capacity and experienced hardships associated with that deficiency. The reauthorization of PRWORA creates a tribal TANF Improvement Fund

of $500 million (to be available for 5 years) to promote and sustain administrative

capacity. This fund would be dispensed in three parts;

Tribal Capacity Grants: $250 million of the funds would be reserved for competitive grants to tribal organizations applying to operate TANF for social services program infrastructure improvement, with a priority for management information systems.

Tribal TANF Supplemental Grants: Population growth among Alaska Natives in

Southcentral Alaska, primarily in the Anchorage area, significantly exceeds the national average. Tribal TANF allocations are based on 1994 population figures; $140

million of the fund would be reserved for supplemental grants to tribal TANF programs to be allocated among all tribal organizations with population growth between 1994–2000 that is above the rate of growth for the country as a whole. Funds

would be allocated proportionate to size and service population on the basis of a formula to be determined by HHS in consultation with tribes and tribal organizations.

The funds would be distributed in two rounds. For fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005, $30 million each year will be distributed by the initial formula. For fiscal year

2006 and fiscal year 2007, $40 million each year reserved will be distributed by a

revised formula, to allow tribal organizations that take over operation of TANF after

the initial distribution to also be eligible for funds. Up to an additional $100 million

would be available to supplement tribal TANF allocations for those tribal organizations unable to obtain state maintenance of effort (MOE) support. Tribal organizations would request the funding as part of applying for a TANF program and would

have to demonstrate their state is unwilling to provide funding. Tribal organizations

already operating TANF programs without state MOE funds would also be eligible

to apply for funds.
40

Technical Assistance: HHS would receive $10 million to provide technical assist- ance to tribal organizations. At least $2.5 million of these funds would be reserved

to support peer-learning programs among tribal administrators and at least $25 million would be reserved for grants to tribal organization to consolidate feasibility

studies of their capacity to operate TANF.

The second issue I will address is the need for a new Tribal Employment Services

Program. Consolidating the existing Tribal NEW program with the tribal Welfare

to Work grants would create this program. It would be funded at $37 million annually and distributed to current Tribal NEW and Welfare to Work grantees as well

as new applicants. The current Tribal NEW program allocation is based on 1994

population figures and is not adequate to support today’s difficult to serve Alaska

Native and American Indian population. This consolidation would broaden the scope

of job-readiness activities and other employment related services for families on

public assistance or at risk of being on assistance, including intensive services for

teen parents. Tribes could also use the funds to assist non-custodial parents of children on or at risk of being on, public assistance.

My final remarks address the issue of Tribal Child Care. The availability of quality child care is a major factor in the transition from welfare to work for TANF clients. For parent(s) to leave welfare or other public assistance programs, obtain basic

marketable skills and move into the workforce, the lack of childcare can make the

difference between success or failure to obtain and sustain employment. In particular, infant care and care for children with special needs is expensive and hard to

find. As more families leave the welfare system and become employed the need for

services continues to steadily increase. For many TANF families who initially find

entry-level employment the cost of childcare is clearly beyond what their income can

maintain. The tribal set-aside within the Child Care Development Fund must be increased from the current 2 percent to 5 percent.

This concludes my remarks. Mr. Chairman, I express my appreciation for the opportunity to testify on these important issues faced by Alaska’s Native people.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARAH HICKS, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

[NCAI]

Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Campbell, and members of the committee, I

would like to thank you for inviting NCAI to testify on the implementation and reauthorization of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act of 1996. As you know, the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest,

largest and most representative organization of American Indian and Alaska Native

tribes and individuals in the nation, has worked actively with tribal governments

throughout the country on the implementation of welfare reform since the passage

of Public Law 104–193. NCAI has facilitated an ongoing Welfare Reform Task Force

composed of tribal representatives from all regions of Indian Country, and has coordinated a range of tribal activities relating to welfare reform implementation, improving state/tribal relationships, and exploring opportunities for increased tribal

participation in local public policy development under a 3-year grant from the W.

K. Kellogg Foundation.

My name is Sarah Hicks, and I serve as the Director of the Welfare Reform Program at NCAL Over the last 5 years, I’ve coordinated a range of tribal activities

relating to welfare reform, and have had the remarkable opportunity to work with

tribes throughout the country on the implementation of State and Tribal TANF and

a host of related programs. For 3 years, NCAI has facilitated a workgroup of TANF

tribes. In the absence of Federal resources to provide technical assistance and share

program knowledge, NCAI coordinated a peer-learning process based on information

sharing meetings, where tribes met on one another’s reservations, toured each other’s programs, and, for the last 2 years, spent considerable time and energy on discussions focused on the reauthorization of the welfare reform law.

Within the last year, tribes have also entered into serious dialog with states about

welfare reform reauthorization. Through our partnership with the American Public

Human Services Association (APHSA), NCAI, and TANF tribes have made considerable headway in finding common ground between states and tribes on many reauthorization issues. This morning, I’m here to share with you three brief themes I

have gathered in my work with the 36 Tribal TANF programs (serving 174 tribes),

the many tribes that are still served by State TANF programs, and a variety of

State TANF programs that serve large Indian TANF caseloads. In addition to my

testimony today, a range of specific recommendations from our workgroup are discussed more thoroughly in an attachment to my formal statement, which I would

like to submit for the record with my testimony.
41

NCAI Testimony to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Regarding Reauthorization of PRWORA

First, tribes support welfare reform efforts. The concept of welfare reform resonates with American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. I have found tribal governments to be universally in favor of individual responsibility and work coupled with

appropriate community supports. Tribes are proponents of addressing issues comprehensively with a whole systems approach, looking holistically at family needs.

Tribal governments have shown a strong preference for the flexibility to facilitate

locally designed and administered programs that fit their unique community needs.

In many ways, the welfare reform law provided tribes with a good blueprint for

change. But in its current form, I would have to say that the existing law has not

brought enough change to Indian country. Due to the severe lack of jobs on reservations, work rates for Indian participants in both State and Tribal TANF programs

are significantly below average. Poverty rates remain high on reservations. Many

support services, such as child care and transportation, are largely unavailable on

reservations. Job training programs have lengthy waiting lists in many cases. On

other reservations, program participants are nearly ‘‘trained to death’’ but still can’t

get a job because of the lack of employment.

This leads me to my second point. The key to meaningful reform in tribal communities is flexibility. Too often welfare reform is thought of as encompassing only the

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. And too often, tribal options

around welfare reform implementation are seen by both tribes and states as either

(1) a tribe receiving Federal funding for the administration of TANF or (2) the tribe

continuing to receive TANF benefits and services from the state. In actuality, there

are a whole range of options between the decision ‘‘to TANF’’ or ‘‘not to TANF.’’ Because the government closest to the people can provide the best service, we think

that in the vast majority of cases, tribes are able to provide social services to their

people more effectively than states. For the most part, states agree with us.

For a whole variety of reasons, tribes may decide not to administer a Tribal TANF

program. In fact, according to GAO and the Congressional Research Service, 305

tribes (and close to 40,000 Indian families) are currently being served by State

TANF programs. Further, as State TANF caseloads decline, an increasing percentage of welfare recipients on many state programs are Indian. Tribes that cannot financially afford to run TANF or that simply opt not to administer the program can

still work with the State TANF program to develop the necessary referral systems

between various state and tribal support programs as well as to contract with the

state for the tribal administration of case management or work and training components of TANF. In fact, many of the tribes that administer TANF contract some of

the administrative functions (such as the distribution of assistance checks and Federal reporting requirements) back to their respective states.

The bottomline is this: As with all locally designed programs, the key for successful Tribal TANF programs and State TANF programs serving Indian communities

is flexibility in service delivery arrangements. This flexibility will also be critical in

the potential of many states with large Indian populations to meet increased work

requirements and work participation rates. Tribal TANF programs need to maintain

the flexibility that we have: the flexibility to define our service area, service population and work activities, as well as to negotiate work requirements and work participation rates.

Tribes in Alaska face a unique limitation in the existing welfare reform law, are

treated differently than tribes in the lower 48 states, and should be given the same

flexibility as other tribes. The current law limits Alaskan tribes’ flexibility through

two provisions, the NCAI Testimony to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Regarding Reauthorization of PRWORA first of which gives the authority for direct

Tribal TANF funding and administration in Alaska to 12 regional non-profit corporations instead of the state’s federally recognized tribal governments. This has a

dramatic impact on tribal governments because Alaska’s 227 tribes make up 40 percent of all tribes in the United States. Additionally, a second provision requires

Tribal TANF programs in Alaska to be ‘‘comparable’’ to the state-operated TANF

program. These provisions hinder self-determination and the ability of tribes in

Alaska to make tribal-specific program decisions.

State governments also need increased flexibility. States need the ability to contract with tribes, allowing state TANF funds transferred to tribes to take on the

identity of tribal funds. The states of Alaska, Minnesota, and Washington already

use TANF funds to contract with tribes for the provision of job training and workforce development activities. But, with increased flexibility, state TANF programs

could contract with tribes for employment and training services, enabling tribes to

report to the Federal Government in their existing annual tribal employment program reports on the use of funds, relieving states of the undesirable responsibility
42

of ‘‘monitoring’’ tribal activities. Precedent for this kind of arrangement already exists when states transfer TANF funds to the Child Care Development Block Grant

and to the Title XX Social Services Block Grant.

My third point is that the notion of welfare reform is much broader than TANF.

TANF is a flexible funding stream to provide time-limited assistance for poor families and facilitate their climb on the ladder to self-sufficiency. The linkages between

TANF and many other social support and assistance programs are well-documented.

We should think about welfare reform in Indian country with a similar view. The

formula for meaningful welfare reform includes:

Financial assistance programs for poor and fragile families, including TANF,

Child Support, and Foster Care;

Related support services that enable recipients to get and keep a job, such as child

care, transportation, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, and other

needed support systems;

Job training programs to build skills for work, qualifying recipients for available

jobs; and Tribal economic development to provide recipients jobs at which they can

earn a living wage and become self-sufficient.

In our work with APHSA, tribes have begun to discuss the continuum of tribal

administration of human service programs on their reservations. In some cases,

tribes administer all of the programs for which they have the authority to receive

direct funding and contract with states to administer others. The welfare reform reauthorization debate is likely to continue to raise issues relating to the desire of

some tribal governments to administer other TANF-related programs, like Title IVE Foster Care, the Social Services Block Grant, the Food Stamp Program, Medicaid,

and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, none of which are currently available

to tribes.

As tribes continue to build more comprehensive local service delivery systems,

providing better access to services and closer ties to local jobs, the well-being of tribal citizens is improving. Tribes are increasingly capable of administering more sophisticated and complex service systems. As the opportunity to administer new programs becomes available to tribes, flexible rules and program options must be in

place. Tribes strongly concur with DHHS Secretary Tommy Thompson’s statement

that ‘‘Barriers must not become excuses-either for government or for former welfare

recipients, especially if we can work together to improve matters and move more

people to the workforce.’’ State-tribal coordination and collaboration to serve reservation-based families underpins the ability of governments to deal with barriers.

The importance of economic development to successful welfare reform implementation cannot be overstated. As my colleagues Drs. Eddie Brown and Stephen Cornell have stated, ‘‘Even if the funding problems with TANF and its related training

programs can be solved—and even if Federal policy were to provide Indian nations

with more flexibility and control over the design and implementation of reform, a

sobering fact remains: without an economic growth strategy, welfare reform in Indian country will fail.’’ Welfare reform reauthorization must address the need for

economic growth to support employment on reservations.

A two-pronged approach is necessary. First, tribes need more flexibility to use existing resources; legislation like S. 343, the Indian Tribal Development Consolidated

Funding Act, is one such tool. Second, tribes need additional resources-both for economic infrastructure and direct job creation. In terms of infrastructure, tribes desperately need to develop better transportation systems and create a more business

friendly environment. Transportation is critical both for human capital development

(getting people to training opportunities and jobs) as well as important infrastructure for the distribution of goods and services both on and off of reservations. Creating a more business-friendly environment on reservations requires uniform commercial codes, tort liability codes, collaborative business networks, telecommunications

infrastructure, and tribal marketing efforts. Development grants to provide targeted, concrete technical assistance to tribes in these areas would be a worthwhile

and fairly inexpensive way to really facilitate economic growth on Indian reservations. Finally, the expansion of tribal authority to issue private activity bonds for

reservation-based economic activity is a way to directly create jobs on reservations.

In closing, there’s no doubt that many Tribal TANF Programs have been successful in creatively addressing the challenges they face. Tribal TANF programs are

doing what most states have had considerable difficulty in doing: working intensely

with multiple barrier families on reservations. Tribal TANF has given tribal members access to support services and job opportunities and has resulted in TANF recipients increasingly being involved in meaningful work activities and making

progress on Individual Responsibility Plans. Tribal TANF programs have been able

to facilitate limited economic development (particularly in the area of microenterprise) and job creation. Tribal TANF programs have worked closely with faith-based
43

organizations, emphasized family formation and responsible fatherhood activities,

and reduced teen pregnancies. However, in examining the areas of Federal welfare

reform policy that could be refined to yield far-reaching results in Indian country,

it is clear that reauthorization must include the following:

Building Tribal TANF infrastructure by providing resources for Tribal TANF

startup, Management Information Systems, and staff training;

Accessing sufficient on-going TANF administration resources by providing incentives for adequate State TANF contributions to Tribal TANF programs or making

a commitment for the full Federal funding of Tribal TANF;

Establishing equity for Tribal TANF through access to the same resources state

programs enjoy (such as the high performance bonus, the Contingency Fund, Technical Assistance, and Research); and

Economic development in Indian count with increased flexibility to use existing

resources and increased resources for development infrastructure and job creation.

Overall, tribes strongly support welfare reform reauthorization and look forward

to taking the next step to bring increased opportunity to Indian reservations. We

commend the committee for its commitment to Indian Country, and appreciate its

focus on welfare reform, an issue that profoundly affects the well-being of Indian

people. Thank you for your invitation to testify, and I welcome any questions that

you might have.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PETERS, TRIBAL SECRETARY, SISSETONWAHPETON SIOUX TRIBE

Good Morning, Chairman Inouye and distinguished members of the Committee of

Indian Affairs. I bring you greetings from the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribal

Council. My name is Michael Peters, the elected Tribal Secretary of the tribe and

I thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on tribal concerns in regard

to the reauthorization of the Federal welfare reform law Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act [PRWORA].

The Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of the Lake Traverse Reservation is located

in northeastern South Dakota with a small portion of the reservation being located

in southeastern North Dakota. The reservation was established by the Treaty of

1867 and currently according to tribal data has a tribal membership of 10,726 of

which 4,830 reside on or the near the reservation.

We are a people rich in tradition and are proud of our heritage, however many

of our people live in severe poverty and with current economic conditions on the reservation they will have little opportunity to become self-sufficient. The following

conditions illustrate the difficulty tribal members have in seeking and retaining employment. Current tribal data shows a poverty rate in excess of sixty (60) percent

and an unemployment rate of approximately forty (40) percent. Lack of jobs, basic

education, skill training, childcare facilities, transportation, and substance

abuse are the major barriers to employment and self-sufficiency for many

tribal members. Additionally there are many families who have a job but are underemployed. They have incomes that are below poverty guidelines and thus they

have problems that relate to retaining employment. In many areas of the country

the above conditions would be considered a real tragedy.

Because of the above conditions, the tribe is and has been very concerned with

the welfare of its members particularly its young people. In October 1987, the tribe

implemented its own Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program without

State matching funds with the firm conviction that the tribe knows best the needs

of its people and is in the best position to address those needs. This year the tribe

has received direct Federal funding for its own Child Support Enforcement Program

with the purpose of ensuring that all children affiliated with the tribe are able to

determine their lineage and obtain child support from responsible parents in a culturally sensitive manner.

In the tribe’s opinion, its administration of the Temporary Assistance for Needy

Programs (TANF) has been a success. Approximately, sixty (60) percent of the initial TANF caseload (October 1997) no longer receives TANF benefits and of the remaining forty (40) percent less than one (1) percent will reach the 60-month time

limit. This success can be attributed to the tribe being able to integrate

TANF into its Public Law 102–477 (477 Program) Indian Employment,

Training, and Related Services Program and target the majority of these

resources to welfare recipients. Other resources related to welfare reform that

have been included into the tribe’s 477 Program include Native Employment Works,

Child Care Development Fund, Work Force Investment Act Programs, Adult Voca-
44

tional Training, Employment Assistance, General Assistance, and the Tribal Work

Experience Program.

With resources found in its 477 program the tribe was able to run a pilot project

for children in its largest political district, which encouraged children to stay in

school, prepare for work, and stay off welfare. Young people were involved in discussions on career development, career readiness and future goal planning; healthy life

styles and self-sufficiency; and responsible families in the Dakota culture. However,

presently the tribe lacks the resources to build on and expand this pilot project.

The Tribal Council does provide limited financial support to its 477 program, however the Council recognizes that if there is to be a solution to welfare dependency

these funds must eventually be utilized for economic development activities that

create jobs for welfare recipients.

Despite the success, there has not been a drop in the tribe’s TANF caseload. Since

the implementation of TANF the tribe’s caseload has remained relatively constant

because:

• Tribal members not being able to retain employment (problems with transportation and childcare)

• Family breakdown/substance abuse problems

• A continual inflow of new cases—particularity young mothers. The tribe has

found that Indian people are much more apt to seek services from a tribal program than from a State administered program and they hold the tribe much

more accountable for the quality of services delivered

• Lack of support from the non-custodial parent

Welfare reform truly has not brought significant change to the Lake Traverse Reservation.

The Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe has made a major commitment to help our

people to meet the challenges of welfare reform. We have devoted tribal as well as

many of our Federal resources to welfare reform. But the tribe cannot do this job

alone. We offer the following recommendations:

In terms of Federal resources for our employment services:

We need continued direct funding for our tribal employment programs.

We do not receive funding from the State of South Dakota for these services and

we do not receive sufficient tribal TANF funds to be able to provide the services necessary to move our people from welfare to work. Any reauthorization of the welfare

reform law must provide for the direct funding of tribal employment services.

We need support for tribal employment services at an adequate level. We

support a tribal employment services program that includes the funding we received

from the Native Employment Works (NEW) and the Welfare-to-Work program and

an increase necessary for us serve clients with more barriers to employment. The

tribe under its Child Support Enforcement Program can now make non-custodial

parents accountable to support their children, however many need basic education

and skill training which will enable them find and retain employment so they can

provide the needed support. Simply continuing the NEW program for another 5

years at its FY–94 funding level will not give the tribe the capacity to provide services to non-custodial parents.

We need the ability to integrate all the necessary services into a single

program that makes sense to the tribe and works effectively at the reservation level. The tribe has tried to do this under Public Law 102–477. The integrated

approach is essential to the tribe’s continues success with welfare reform. Program

integration is a goal of the President’s welfare reform proposals. However, we and

other 477 tribes have been hamstrung by objections raised by HHS staff to integrating TANF and NEW with our other programs under a single plan, single budget,

and single report. The welfare reauthorization law must include strong language

that HHS must respect our ability to use 477 as a tribal tool for program integration.

We need a requirement in the Law that HHS and all other Federal agencies involved must consult with the tribal governments on regulations and

policies governing the various Federal programs. The tribe cannot afford to

have its plans undermined by Federal rules adopted without our input and which

makes our job impossible.

In terms of Federal Resources for Tribal TANF:

We need to a way to insure that our TANF recipients receive at least the

same level of resources per person that State TANF recipients receive. Our

employment services are closely integrated with our cash assistance programs, including General Assistance, and supportive services such as childcare. If our TANF

program is shortchanged because the State of South Dakota chooses not to provide

matching funds, all the services suffer and our people do not receive all the help
45

they need. The reauthorization of welfare reform must provide for an adjustment

to tribal TANF funding levels in situations like ours where there is not state

‘‘match.’’ Reauthorization should also provide bonus and contingency funds for

tribes.

We strongly recommend that reauthorization continue to protect the tribal flexibility to distinctly define their service area and service population

and the ability to negotiate minimum work participation requirements.

We also recommend a reduction in the fifty (50) percent joblessness rate

found in Section 408 of PRWORA. This tribe strongly recommends stopping the

clock for months of assistance where TANF recipients are meeting all the program

requirements but cannot find employment because of the lack of employment opportunities within reservation.

And, we need support for economic development to insure that there are

jobs for welfare recipients. If welfare reform is to be about reducing dependency

on public assistance in tribal communities, it must also be about creating jobs in

reservation areas for welfare recipients so welfare recipients can become self-sufficient.

The Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe has taken tribal sovereignty very seriously.

We have applied this concept to our tribal services, as well as our approach to many

other issues.

We were one of the first tribes to take the opportunity to integrate many of our

services under Public Law 102–477. We were one the first tribes to run our own

tribal TANF program. We continue to be the only tribe in the State of South Dakota

that has done so. We were one of the first tribe to implement our own Child Support

Enforcement Program. This is a record we are proud of.

We intend to continue to serve our people in ways that are consistent with our

tribal traditions and the needs of our communities. What we ask is simply that you

make it possible for us to help ourselves more effectively and that you continue the

Indian Affairs Committee’s strong commitment to tribal sovereignty in all its aspects.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK F. TROPE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION ON

AMERICAN INDIAN AFFAIRS, INC

Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Campbell, and members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Please accept this testimony for the record on behalf of the

Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc. [AAIA]. AAIA is an 80-year-old citizens’

organization governed by an all-Native American Board of Directors, with members

in all 50 States and offices in South Dakota, New Mexico and Arizona. AAIA was

formed, and has worked closely with tribes, to promote the welfare of American Indians and Alaska Natives. This has included the defense of the constitutional rights

of Indian tribes and their members, efforts to improve their health, economic and

educational conditions and support for the perpetuation of their cultures.

As part of its work, AAIA has long been involved in the effort to obtain adequate

tribal funding from Federal block grants and entitlement programs. In 1988, thenCongressman Morris Udall introduced a bill at AAIA’s request that would have provided for direct tribal funding from the Title XX Block Grant program, Titles IVB and IV-E of the Social Security Act and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental

Health Block Grant. In 1990 and 1991, AAIA was invited to testify on these tribal

funding issues by both the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy of

the Senate Finance Committee and a subcommittee of the House Ways and Means

Committee. AAIA has continued to actively work with House and Senate staff on

these issues, as well as organizations like the National Indian Child Welfare Association, for the last several years.

AAIA enthusiastically applauds Senator Baucus’ introduction of S. 2484. While we

believe that there are many meritorious provisions in the bill, we particularly want

to emphasize our support for sections 10 and 13 of the bill. These sections would

make tribes eligible for direct funding under the Title IV-E Foster and Adoption Assistance program and the Title XX Social Services Block Grant. As you know, section 10 is based upon S. 550, sponsored by Senator Daschle and co-sponsored by 16

Senators, including many of the Senators on this Committee. We thank all of those

Senators for their support on this issue and their commitment to Indian families,

children and tribes and would particularly like to recognize those Senators from

states where AAIA is currently located—Senators Daschle, Johnson, Bingaman,

Dominici, and McCain.

As has been well documented, tribal exclusion from these programs was not deliberate. At that time (1980), the committees addressing these issues did not fully un-
46

derstand and recognize the critical role of tribal governments in service delivery to

children, nor the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribal nations. Today, Congress has

a better understanding of tribal sovereignty and the critical role of tribal governments in providing services to children and families and, as the aforementioned

Senators have recognized, it is time to correct this oversight. Tribal governments are

the entities best situated to provide such services to their communities for several

reasons:

• Indian tribes are ‘‘domestic dependent nations’’ with inherent sovereign powers.

They have a direct government-to-government relationship with the Federal

Government and are not subdivisions of the states.

• History has shown, and a 1994 HHS inspector general report confirms, that

states do not generally pass through block grant funding to tribal governments;

in the case of Title IV-E, there have been some tribal-state agreements negotiated, but they are limited in number and scope and generally do not include

the full array of IV-E services and administrative support that states are able

to access.

• Tribal programs are more attuned to the special programmatic and cultural

needs of their local communities and have experience in operating quality programs when resources are available; permanency for Indian children who need

out-of-home placements is best achieved when tribes have the resources to ensure that quality foster care and adoptive placements for these children.

• Tribal members continue to experience inequity in the quality and quantity of

services available under State-administered programs.

• Although some tribes have accumulated significant resources because of their

successful gaming operations, most tribes continue to lack a substantial economic and tax base from which to generate resources.

• Federal resources provided for Indian people for social services through Bureau

of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services budgets have consistently been inadequate, falling far short of need.

• In the case of Title IV-E, providing for tribal access to this program would address a substantial injustice—namely, that some of the neediest children in the

country are excluded from a program that is an entitlement for all other similarly situated children, simply because they fall under tribal jurisdiction.

Of note, support for these provisions is not limited to tribes and Indian organizations. For example, the 1994 HHS Inspector General report specifically recommended direct funding to tribes under Titles IV-E and XX and state-based groups

such as the American Public Human Services Association have taken a clear position in support of the Title IV-E provisions of this bill.

For all of these reasons, we urge Congress to include sections 10 and 13 of S. 2484

in Welfare Reform Reauthorization legislation.

Thank you for considering this testimony.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM

COLORADO, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

Good morning and thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for holding this oversight hearing on the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, better known as ‘‘welfare reform’’. By

now we are all-too-familiar with the poor economic conditions in Indian communities:

• a jobless rate of 45 percent, and a rate of 80–90 percent in the Plains Tribes’

economies;

• a reservation ‘‘brain drain’’ of our brightest Indian youth; and

• an anemic reservation economic base in which Indian people cannot get good

jobs.

And, as you know Mr. Chairman, despite some recent success with Indian gaming, natural resource development, and other business opportunities, most of Indian

America suffers from an unemployment rate that is five to ten times the national

average.

The welfare reform act was a landmark achievement when it was signed into law

in 1996. It requires the Department of Health and Human Services to authorize and

assist Indian tribes in establishing their own, unique welfare systems and rules to

match the unique circumstances of reservation geographies and tribal economies.

In some respects, the welfare reform act is modeled after the successful Indian

Self Determination and Tribal Self Governance Acts.

For the first time, Indian tribes are authorized to design, implement and administer their own tribal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families [TANF] programs.

For the first time, Indian tribes receive direct funding to design welfare programs

that were tailored to the rural and economically depressed nature of Indian country.

Now, 6 years later as we revisit the welfare reform act, the tribes are telling us

that there can administer these programs and administer them well.

The tribes are also telling us that they do not stand shoulder to shoulder with

the States when it comes to receiving technical assistance and other ‘‘capacity-building’’ resources that have been made available to the States for decades.

These funding inequities are preventing the tribes from making full, best use of

the TANF program and in turn from helping their members transition from welfare

to work.

I believe that in administering welfare reform, Congress and Indian tribes must

work together to enhance opportunities in Native economies and provide job opportunities to Indian people.

That, Mr. Chairman, is real welfare reform.

In reauthorizing the welfare reform act, we should perfect it and make sure that

it helps a tribal member with the services he or she needs to get and keep a job.

Its that simple.

With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Æ