U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Tribal Consultation Session
Phoenix , AZ : Sheraton Wild Horse Pass
Meeting Room: Akimel O'otham 4
Tuesday, December 2, 2003
9:00 am- 5:00 pm
Meeting Summary
Compiled by the National Congress of American Indians
January 2004
Overview
On December 2, 2003 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration for Children and Families (ACF) held its first ever agency wide tribal consultation session.* ACF invited all tribal communities, Native non-profits, and urban Indian centers to participate in this historical event. Tribal representatives worked with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) to develop an agenda that reflected the priorities of tribal communities and to propose speakers, preferably tribal leaders, who could give testimony on the critical issues identified. (See appendix A for a copy of the final consultation agenda.)
Many senior ACF officials participated in the session. Each agency in which tribes had identified issues to address had a representative present, often the senior-most official, to hear and respond to tribal concerns, answer questions, and brainstorm solutions to problems. ACF/HHS officials present included:
Joan Ohl, Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACYF)
Quanah Stamps , Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans ( ANA )
Dr. Susan Orr, Associate Commissioner, Children's Bureau
Dr. Sherri Heller, Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
Shannon Christian, Associate Commissioner, Child Care Bureau
Clarence Carter, Director, Office of Community Services (OCS)
Andrew Bush, Director, Office of Family Assistance (OFA)
Gena Tyner-Dawson, Senior Advisor for Tribal Affairs, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, HHS
Sheila Cooper, Director of Program Operations, ANA
Georgeline Sparks, Branch Chief, American Indian Alaska Native Program Branch, Head Start Bureau
Carol Watkins, Director, Division of Community Discretionary Programs, OCS
Lionel (Jay) Adams, III, Director of Special Staff s, OCSE
Margaret Washnitzer, Director, Division of State Assistance, OCS
A transcriber was hired to record and transcribe the session.** HHS will make the official transcripts available. This document summarizes the main points in each issue area that were raised in formal testimony by appointed speakers as well as in open discussion sessions throughout the consultation. This summary addresses each issue in the order that it was addressed during the consultation, including: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); Public Law 102-477; Tribal/State Relationships; Administration for Native Americans (ANA) programs; Office of Community Services programs (OCS); Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) programs; Child Care; Head Start; Child Welfare; and Training, Technical Assistance, and Capacity-Building. The key issues that speakers made are summarized in bullet points. Tribal representatives also raised other issues that do not necessarily fall within these categories; those issues are also summarized. Finally, the commitments that ACF officials made to tribal representatives are listed.
Also of note is the Tribal Leader Policy Statement that was drafted during the consultation session. (See appendix B for a copy of the Tribal Leader Policy Statement). A tribal caucus was held during lunch of the consultation session. During this caucus, tribal leaders raised a number of timely, over-arching issues that they wanted to address to the ACF Senior officials present, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, and President George Bush. A policy statement containing these key points was drafted and presented at the conclusion of the formal consultation session. The policy statement, with an accompanying cover letter signed by NCAI President Tex Hall, was sent to Secretary Thompson the following week.
Issues Raised in Tribal Testimony
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
- Planning, start-up and infrastructure funds are needed (including data development and reporting infrastructure).
- Economic development must be a component of welfare reform.
- Technical assistance is critical (tribes must be able to share best practices; better information is needed).
- Research and evaluation should be tribally initiated and tribally controlled.
- Full program funding is a necessity (either MOE from states or full federal funding is required; tribes shouldn't have to go through state anyway; tribal programs should be directly federally funded).
- Caseloads should be reassessed because of rising caseload numbers.
- Funding for supportive services is necessary (not just cash grants).
- Transportation and substance abuse are large barriers.
- There is a built-in assumption that program expenses will decrease over time (as caseloads fall), but for tribes with 50% joblessness exemption this is not the case.
- State consultation with tribes on state plans should be mandated.
- Tribes should have access to performance bonuses.
- Program flexibility must be maintained.
- Construction should be an allowable use of funds (like CCDF and Head Start); facilities are critically needed.
Public Law 102-477
- Waiver provisions from statutory requirements were allowed by 2000 amendments to P.L. 102-477, yet HHS won't consider this option (with regard to reporting requirements).
- Administrative costs have not been reduced because of time-intensive reporting requirements (some of which are duplicative) and separate accounting of program expenses. This undermines the very intention of the law.
- HHS should take leadership to work with tribes and other federal agencies (DOI) to develop policy that furthers the goals of 477.
Tribal/State Relationships
- Relationships between individual tribes and their state and federal governments vary greatly (they are not uniform).
- There is a need to adequately define respective federal-state-tribal roles and responsibilities.
- Tribes are often between a rock and a hard place: the federal government directs tribes to the states in order to secure needed resources, but states point tribes back to the federal government.
- HHS should advocate within the Department and with states to facilitate better state/tribal relationships.
Administration for Native Americans
- The role of ANA is to provide key discretionary funds and fill voids where tribal governments do not have the resources to do so.
- As the federal government is divesting itself of responsibilities, it pushes service delivery to states but cannot diminish its federal trust responsibility.
- The Federal Register notice on proposed ANA program funding too narrowly defines priorities; tribes need flexibility to use this funding source where they need it most.
- Most tribes do not have discretionary funds to integrate programs.
- Tribes experience significant shortfall of administrative costs.
- Almost all federal programs emphasize economic development, but there is a huge capital shortfall.
- ANA budgets have stagnated over time; they need an influx of new funding.
- Tribes should receive funds through mechanisms that recognize their governmental authority (and facilitates government-to-government relationships).
- Formulas should account for true need instead of per capita distributions.
- Grant reviewers should be better educated and more experienced (they should understand business in Indian Country and be able to provide good feedback on proposals).
Office of Community Services
Individual Development Accounts
- Administrative funding is critical (tribes need more than just program funds).
- Reporting and paperwork is overly burdensome and not indicative of true outcomes.
- Tribes need to build administrative; funding is not available for this.
- Partnering with a non-profit is difficult (tribes should be able to administer on their own programs).
- Savings goals of IDAs should be flexible to enable programs to tailor them to the needs of their communities.
Community Services Block Grant
- Plan requirements are disproportionately burdensome in comparison to the funding amounts-- lots of work for very few dollars.
- Regulations are outdated; current law allows for much more flexibility than the regulations now afford.
Child Support Enforcement
Tribal Child Support Enforcement Interim Rule
- Indirect costs are not available on CSE grants, so funding is insufficient.
- Management information systems are a major cost.
- Planning grants are needed.
- There has not been true consultation on the final rule; tribal comments were ignored during the NPRM process.
- Seven years after the passage of PRWORA, there is still no final Tribal CSE rule.
- Tribes are treated as states (as though they had commensurate resources).
- Waivers for the tribal match are not being granted.
Proposal to Intercept Gambling Winnings
- This proposal undermines self-determination and self-sufficiency of tribes (diverts primary income from tribes).
- It impinges on the right of tribes to design programs most appropriate for their communities.
- Gaming dollars supplement many tribal programs.
- Tribes may have to shut down their CSE program if it threatens their gaming operation.
- Tribes would like to see the estimates that Sherri Heller referenced with regard to the number of children who would benefit from the interception of gambling winnings.
Child Care
- Child care assistance is not sufficient; there is much unmet need.
- Tribes run out of funds before the fiscal year is over.
- The quality of care is not high enough (not enough funds).
- Training and technical assistance funding needs to be increased.
- Federal agencies should coordinate better (since tribes are also required to coordinate their programs).
- There is little data available from the federal government (although tribes do send in their reports).
- Research dollars should be made available; tribal programs are interested in testing the effectiveness of their interventions based on their own performance measures.
Head Start
- Funding is inadequate (staff, program costs, etc.).
- Unfunded mandates are frequent (i.e. more qualified teachers, child restraints in vehicles).
- Training and technical assistance funding needs to be increased.
- Funds need to be available for 0-3 year olds also (population is shifting).
- More culturally sensitive reviewers should participate in onsite reviews.
- Federal offices should be held to the same time limits as field offices.
- Income guidelines should be re-evaluated (kids whose parents are in professional fields may no longer qualify).
- Reporting is burdensome; additional funding should be provided.
- Alaska is considered separately for training and technical assistance; it should not be.
Child Welfare
The Bush Administration's Title IV-E Proposal and Title IV-E Amendments
- Tribes should be eligible to directly receive Title IV-E foster care funds; tribes should not have to work through the states to secure funds.
- Tribal/state IV-E agreements should continue to be recognized.
- Tribes are in the best position to design programs that are appropriate for their communities.
- Tribes should be able to determine their own adoption standards.
The Adoption and Safe Families Act Program Regulations
- There are some intersections between ASFA and ICWA, but ASFA should not undermine ICWA.
- Congress recognized the sovereignty of tribal governments and the unique needs of Indian children with the passage of ICWA.
- ASFA regulations should respect the spirit and intentions of ICWA.
Training, Technical Assistance, and Capacity Building
- A national vehicle to strengthen ACF programs in tribal communities is necessary; this national group can ensure there are training and technical assistance set-asides for tribal programs.
- Peer-to-peer training (among tribes) and state-to-tribe technical assistance are tools that work.
- Communication between tribal programs and between states and tribes needs to be enhanced; strong networks will result in stronger programs.
- Adequate data is a critical piece of planning and training; some technical assistance can focus on data gathering, sharing and reporting.
Other Concerns
- Faith-based initiatives should be carefully monitored; faith-based organizations should not be allowed to hire or terminate based on religious affiliation.
- Negotiated rule-making is a strong acknowledgement of the government-to-government relationship; it should be used whenever new rules are being developed.
- Tribes should receive access to all the same resources as states (including training, technical assistance, and infrastructure support).
- Administrative decisions should be reviewed for their impact on small tribes.
- Waivers of matching funds and administrative caps are tools that HHS should be willing to consider; these allow tribes to seriously consider taking over programs.
- See Tribal Leader Policy Statement (appendix B).
HHS Responses, Commitments, and Issues to Follow-up
- ACF will conduct more consultations and ACF staff will visit tribal communities. (Andy Bush)
- Consultation should be structured with tribal input. (Andy Bush)
- Technical assistance is critical and will be provided, but under some constraints. It must be cost-effective. (Andy Bush)
- ACF is supportive of 477, but practical difficulties exist in coordinating programs. (Andy Bush)
- The interception of gambling winnings proposal does not apply to just tribes, but to all casinos and all gamblers. (Sherri Heller)
- If the proposal (which was part of the President's budget request) does pass this spring, then a workgroup will be formed to address the implementation issues. It is estimated that it will take 2-3 years to implement this proposal. (Sherri Heller)
- HHS OCSE is also frustrated by the long time it has taken them to put together the Tribal CSE rule. They have been working hard to educate their colleagues in the Department about tribal sovereignty, jurisdiction, and cultural practices. (Sherri Heller)
- Funding for technology transfer is available to help tribes and states learn from each other. (Sherri Heller)
- Head Start will stay within HHS (and not move to the U.S. Department of Education). (Joan Ohl)
- American Indian/Alaska Native programs will never be part of the state option. (Joan Ohl)
- HHS will look at a reconfiguration of the way they provide training and technical assistance (provision to tribes needs to be strengthened). (Joan Ohl)
- Over a period of time HHS will look at how CCDF and Head Start training and technical assistance funds can be reallocated. (Joan Ohl)
- Consultation will be on going, with a 60-day comment period. (Joan Ohl)
- Comments will be carried into the workshop sessions. (Joan Ohl)
- Tribes have asked HHS to: consult early on important policy decisions; listen more closely to the challenges they are facing and be more culturally sensitive; provide more funding for training, technical assistance, and research; facilitate economic and social development; allow the most flexibility possible in program design; provide additional resources for early childhood programs; and work with tribes to disseminate best practices (Joan Ohl)
- CSBG plan/application requirements are based on statutory requirements. CSBG grantees have the option to submit plans every two years rather than every year. Applicable regulations at 45 CRF Part 96 do not limit tribal flexibility, and they provide more flexibility to tribes than to states. (OCS)
- “ACF administers the Assets for Independence (AFI) Demonstration Program, which provides grant funding for local asset building projects that feature Individual Development Accounts (IDAs). The authorizing law includes several restrictions. For example, it specifically authorizes ACF to award funds to tribal organizations only if they apply in partnership with a nonprofit organization. It stipulates that project participants may only use their IDA accounts for three purposes: a first home; postsecondary education or supporting or starting up a small business. It authorizes grantees to use only a small amount of an AFI project grant for program administration.” (OCS)
- Tribal comments raised at this consultation session will be discussed at the next HHS Intradepartmental meeting. (Quanah Stamps )
*For an overview of programs and activities included within ACF's jurisdiction, see www.acf.hhs.gov/index.html .
**Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. of Washington , D.C. See www.nealgross.com for more information.
Appendix A: Final Agenda
HHS ACF Consultation Agenda
Phoenix , AZ : Sheraton Wild Horse Pass
Meeting Room: Akimel O'otham 4
Tuesday, December 2, 2003
9:00 am- 5:00 pm
9:00 am Opening
Quanah Stamps, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, HHS
Invocation
Gary Bibb, Building Official, Gila River Indian Community
Introduction of Elected Tribal Leaders
Introduction of Administration for Children, Youth and Families Commissioner
Quanah Stamps, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, HHS
Welcome and Introduction of ACF Senior Staff
Joan Ohl, Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, HHS
Review of Consultation Session Goals
Quanah Stamps, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, HHS
Gena Tyner-Dawson, Senior Advisor for Tribal Affairs, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, HHS
Review of Agenda
Jacqueline Johnson, Executive Director, National Congress of American Indians
9:45 am Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Implementation and Reauthorization
Brian Wallace, Chairman, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California
Dallas Massey, Sr., Chairman, White Mountain Apache Tribe
10:10 am Consolidation of Related Federal Funding Streams: Public Law 102-477
Francine Skenadore, Attorney, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
Cindy Fairchild, Human Services Program Director, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
10:30 am Training, Technical Assistance and Capacity Building
Lorenda Sanchez, Executive Director, California Indian Manpower, Inc.
10:40 am Response to Tribal Testimonies
11:10 am Federal Role in Tribal/State Relations
Gordon James, Chairman, Skokomish Tribe
11:20 am Administration for Native Americans (ANA) Programs
Tim Martin, Executive Director, United South and Eastern Tribes
John Lewis, Executive Director, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
11:40 am Office of Community Services (OCS) Programs:
Tribal Individual Development Account (IDA) Programs
Lois Lockhart, Tribal Administrator, Redwood Valley Rancheria, Little River Band of Pomo
Indians
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)
Marvin Jones, Executive Director, Community Services, Cherokee Nation
12:00 pm Lunch on your own
Tribal Caucus (Poolside)
1:15 pm Child Support Enforcement:
Tribal Child Support Enforcement Interim Rule
Joe Shirley, Jr., President, Navajo Nation
Proposal to Intercept Gambling Winnings
Greg Andersen, Self-Governance Coordinator, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
Joan Delabreau, Chairperson, Menominee Indian Nation
1:45 pm Child Care
Phyllis Yargee, Council Member, Cherokee Nation
Julie Quaid, Director, Essential Education, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
2:05 pm Head Start
Sam McClellan, Council Member, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa Indians
Mavany Verdugo, President, National Tribal Head Start Directors Association
2:25 pm Child Welfare:
The Bush Administration's Title IV-E Proposal and Title IV-E Amendments
Gil Vigil, Vice-Chairman, All-Indian Pueblo Council
The Adoption and Safe Families Act Program Regulations
Terry Cross, Executive Director, National Indian Child Welfare Association
2:45 pm Response to Tribal Testimonies
3:15 pm Presentation of Tribal Leader Policy Statement
Jonathan Windy Boy, Council Member, Chippewa Cree Tribe and Legislator, State of Montana
Open Tribal Leader Discussion
(Suggested topics from tribal leaders may include, but are not limited to: Native Employment
Works (NEW) Implementation and Reauthorization; Title VI and VII HHS Self-Governance
Feasibility Study and Related Demonstrations; Community Development Corporations; and
ACF Programs and Urban Indian Needs)
4:45 pm Closing Comments
Joan Ohl, Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, HHS
5:00 pm Closing Prayer
Adjourn
Please Note : The formal record for consultation testimony will be open for 60 days following this session. Send any additional comments to: Quanah Stamps, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, 8 th Floor Aerospace Center , 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, Washington , DC 20447 or via fax at (202) 690-7441.
Appendix B: Tribal Leader Policy Statement
Tribal Leader Policy Statement
HHS ACF Consultation Session
Phoenix , Arizona
December 2, 2003
As tribal leaders at the first HHS ACF Consultation Session, held in Phoenix , Arizona on December 2, 2003 , we would like to bring to HHS and the White House some cross-cutting issues of significant importance and concern to our governments and communities. This policy statement conveys a tribal perspective on the government-to-government relationship and requirements for implementation.
The American Indian and Alaska Native peoples, who, since time immemorial has formed tribal nations on this land, we hereby affirm our special relationship with the federal government of the United States.
As peoples specifically identified in the Constitution of the United States with whom the U.S. would conduct commerce, and as peoples whose rights and sovereignty have been articulated in treaties, statutes, Supreme Court rulings, and administrative actions, we hereby acknowledge this first ACF Tribal Consultation Session, and in accordance with tribal-federal government-to-government relations, declare this statement to be representative of the spirit of the tribal leaders and nations here gathered in consultation.
First, we believe that it is imperative to issue a Presidential Executive Order that reaffirms the government-to-government relationship between the federal government and sovereign tribal governments. This order should outline guiding principles and foundations to direct the policy and actions of this Administration in fulfilling the obligations of the federal government to American Indian and Alaska Native governments.
Second, as the federal government continues to devolve authority and divest resources in state, local and tribal governments, it should be clear that this course of action does not in any way diminish the federal trust responsibility that exists between the federal government and American Indian and Alaska Native governments.
Third, as this trend continues, to mitigate any detriment to tribes, the federal governments is obligated to maintain to meet its federal trust responsibility. We call upon the federal government to take a stronger role in facilitating positive, mutually beneficial tribal-state relationships.
Fourth, we are encouraged by HHS' commitment to amending their tribal consultation policy. The revision of this policy is an opportunity to strengthen open dialogue between tribal governments and HHS sub-agencies and to facilitate active tribal participation in HHS policy development processes that results in an agreed-upon course of action. To serve as a conduit between HHS sub-agencies and tribal governments, each operating division should work with tribes to develop a technical advisory committee that can coordinate tribal input into agency activities on an on-going basis. Issue-specific tribal workgroups, which some HHS operating divisions already use, are also an appropriate mechanism to facilitate positive policy development and implementation.
Fifth, the unique responsibility of the federal government toward Indian tribes demands that the Administration exempt Indian programs from federal budget rescissions. Indian programs have been historically under-funded and disproportionately cut. The Administration should work with Congress to index Indian programs for inflation and seek to remove barriers that limit the participation of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes in all HHS programs. Options for direct tribal administration of HHS programs and sufficient appropriations should be available.
Sixth, in order to sufficiently address the issues that have been raised in this consultation session, we call upon HHS to hold a follow-up meeting within six months from now regarding the Administration's response to the requests and guidance from tribal leadership.
Finally, in the spirit of true consultation and the conference theme “The ACF Circle: Working Together for Successful Communities,” all of the issues that have been identified at this ACF National Tribal Consultation Session and the ACF National Native American Conference should be given serious consideration by HHS ACF senior staff. A written response to tribal leadership should be made after all the comments from the 60-day comment period have been compiled and reviewed.