Administration for Children and Families
Tribal Consultation Session
December 2, 2004
ACF Program Response
Office of Community Services (OCS)
1. Assets for Independence (AFI) Demonstration Program
The program provides grant funding for local asset-building projects that feature Individual Development Accounts (IDAs).Tribal testimony raised concerns about the difficulty of partnering with a nonprofit to administer AFI projects, lack of administrative funding for projects, inflexibility of IDA savings goals, and burdensome paperwork/reporting that may not indicate true outcomes. The authorizing statute includes restrictions on eligibility for funding and uses of funds in AFI projects. It authorizes ACF to award funds to tribal organizations only if they apply in partnership with a nonprofit organization, limits the amount of project grants that may be used for program administration, and specifies the three purposes for which project participants may use their IDA accounts. Statutory amendments would be required to change these requirements. ACF is working with stakeholders, including tribes and tribal organizations, to help assure success of asset-building initiatives and address concerns. OCS and ANA are identifying solutions that will enable as many tribes as possible to benefit from the AFI project immediately. These solutions include: a potential partnership between OCS and ANA to help reduce the burden of administrative costs; development of materials to promote and teach effective IDA practices; collection of Native American IDA “best practices” examples; and identification of techniques that tribes have used to foster an effective AFI program.
2. Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)
Tribal Leaders raised concerns that plan requirements may be burdensome in comparison to funding amounts, and program regulations may not provide flexibility consistent with current law. CSBG plan requirements are based on current statutory requirements in the Community Services Block Grant Act. Regulations for the CSBG program are included in the Department's block grant regulations at 45 CFR Part 96, which provide maximum flexibility to grantees, and provide more flexibility to tribes than to states, consistent with current law
Head Start Bureau (HSB) American Indian-Alaska Native Branch
1. Funding is inadequate (staff, program costs etc.)
The original funding awarded to a grantee is based on the budget submitted with the application. Grantees are awarded additional funds for use in quality improvements, cost-of-living increases, special initiatives etc. when such funds are appropriated by Congress. In 2002, the American Indian-Alaska Native Branch (AIAN) awarded $181,794,159 to grantees with a total funded enrollment of 23,837 children. (Head Start Act, Sections 638,639,640)
2. Unfunded mandates are frequent (i.e. teacher qualifications, child restraints in vehicles)
The 1998 Reauthorization of the Head Start Act specified that any additional funds appropriated to provide Head Start quality improvements be used to improve the compensation of staff with preference for increases beyond cost of living adjustments being used to increase the salaries of “…classroom teachers and staff who obtain additional training or education…” The Act also stated that of remaining quality improvement funds, highest priority must be given to improving staff qualifications.
When one-time program improvement funds are available, grantees are invited to apply to receive those funds with priority given to health and safety issues. Many grantees received funds to improve the safety of transportation services. Further, grantees that encountered barriers to implementing the transportation regulation had the opportunity to apply for an extension. (Head Start Act, Section 640)
3. Training and Technical Assistance funding needs to be increased
The 1998 Head Start Act specifies that not less than two percent of the amount appropriated each fiscal year for Head Start be allocated for training and technical assistance. (Head Start Act, Section 640(a) 92)(C)) The Head Start Bureau has re-designed its national training and technical assistance approach to improve the consistency and quality of service available to grantees. Tribal grantees will be assigned T&TA specialists to assist in training needs assessment and the identification of training resources.
4. Funds need to be available for 0-3 year olds (population is shifting)
Early Head Start was first authorized in 1994. Since then it has grow to enroll over 62,000 children as compared with the over 850,000 preschoolers.
5. More culturally sensitive reviewers should participate in onsite reviews.
The AIAN Branch works closely with the monitoring contractor to ensure that reviewers are culturally sensitive. This effort is ongoing.
6. Federal offices should be held to the same time limits as field offices
We agree and are working hard to increase the on-time funding of grants and issuance of monitoring letters. Grantees can help by making sure applications are complete and submitting them on time.
7. Income guidelines should be re-evaluated (kids whose parents are in professional fields may no longer qualify)
The Head Start Act defines income eligibility as having family incomes below the poverty line or eligible for public assistance. Indian tribes that enroll all income eligible children in their service area may enroll additional children (as long as the program predominantly (51% of total enrollment) serves children who meet the low income criteria. (Sections 645(a) (1) (A) and (d) (1) (C))
8. Reporting is burdensome, additional funding should be provided
All information collection conducted by the Head Start Bureau must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Current Head Start reporting requirements include the Program Information Report (PIR), funding application(s) and the National Reporting System (NRS). Grantees were provided with supplemental funds to support implementation of the NRS.
9. Alaska is considered separately for training and technical assistance; it should not be.
The inclusion of Alaska in Region X's training and technical assistance contract rather than in the AIAN contract was based on efficiency given the geographic barriers. By including Region X and Region XI Alaska grantees under one contract, we increased the amount of T&TA that would otherwise be available to either group of grantees. We will ensure that Alaska T& TA providers are full informed of AIAN Head Start program issues and priorities and that they are included whenever possible in AIAN activities and events.
Child Care Bureau
1. Child care assistance is not sufficient; there is much unmet need.
At a time when many federal discretionary spending programs have experienced decreases, child care funding levels have remained constant, at an all time high. In fact, our federal regulations give tribal child care programs more flexibility than State programs in administering their Child Care and Development (CCDF) block grant funds.
Indian children are also dually eligible to receive CCDF services from their Tribe or from the State CCDF program. Specifically, the Child Care Development Block Grant Act (the Act) indicates, "The awarding of a grant or contract under this section for programs or activities to be conducted in a State or States shall not affect the eligibility of any Indian child to receive services provided or to participate in programs and activities carried out under a grant to the State or States under this subchapter" (Section 658O(c)(5) of the Act and (45 C.F.R 98.(d)). In 1997, ACF issued a Policy Interpretation Question (PIQ) to encourage States and Tribes to work closely together to ensure that adequate child care services are available for eligible Indian children. This PIQ is available on the Child Care Bureau's website at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/pq9701/pq9701.htm .
2. Tribes run out of funds before the fiscal year is over.
Tribes are again reminded that Indian children are dually eligible to receive CCDF services from their Tribe or from the State CCDF program (Section 658O(c)(5) of the Act and (45 C.F.R 98.(d)). Over the years, Tribes have employed a number of strategies to leverage their CCDF funds. As an approach to maximize their CCDF funds, some Tribes refer families to the State CCDF Lead Agency for child care services before they will issue a subsidy payment to that family. Other Tribes make cost sharing arrangements with State CCDF Lead Agencies. Through collaborations with other early childhood programs, a number of Tribes effectively maximize their CCDF resources. The Child Care Bureau's Tribal Child Care Technical Assistance Center (TriTAC) highlights examples of effective program collaborations as “Effective Program Strategies” on the TriTAC website at: http://www.nccic.org/tribal/effective/effective.html .
3. The quality of care is not high enough (not enough funds).
Due to the flexible nature of the CCDF block grant, Tribes have tremendous flexibility in administering their funds. For example, the $20,000 Base Amount (under CCDF's Discretionary Funds) may “be expended for any costs consistent with the purposes and requirements of the CCDF” (45 C.F.R. 98.61(c)(1)(i) and 45 C.F.R. 98.83(e)). Therefore, at their discretion, Tribes may use this funding for quality improvement activities, such as professional development.
The CCDF regulations do not require Tribes with annual CCDF grant awards under $500,000 to spend funds on quality activities. Tribes with annual grant awards over $500,000 are required to spend no less than 4 percent of their funds on quality activities (45 C.F.R. 98.83(f)(3)).
CCDF program narrative reports describe a number of innovative and inexpensive strategies that are being used by Tribes to raise the quality of the care provided to children in the full range of provider settings. The Child Care Bureau's 10 th National American Indian and Alaska Native Child Care Conference in April 2004 is hosting a workshop “Ideas for Using Quality Child Care Dollars” that will showcase innovative ways that large and small Tribes are using CCDF funds to enhance quality in tribal child care programs.
4. Training and technical assistance funding needs to be increased.
In 2003, the Child Care Bureau (CCB) began a thorough examination of its technical assistance (TA) network to determine best practices and to explore new or improved methods of delivering TA to States, Territories and Tribes. During this time, the CCB has received comments and recommendations from a number of key stakeholders, including: ACF Regional Offices, the CCB's Tribal Work Group, and the National Indian Child Care Association.
In addition, as an outcome of the ACF Tribal Consultation in December 2003, the Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) convened a working group to discuss TA delivery mechanisms and needs within the four ACYF Bureaus: Child Care Bureau; Children's Bureau; Family and Youth Services Bureau; and Head Start Bureau. As part of this working group, the Child Care Bureau determined that over $1.4 million is dedicated to tribal TA through several different CCB contracts.
In FY 2003, over $1.2 million was awarded to Native American Management Services, Inc. to continue the operations of a Tribal Child Care Technical Assistance Center (TriTAC). Under this contract, TriTAC conducts the CCB's National American Indian and Alaska Native Child Care Conference, Tribal Cluster Trainings, and a New Administrators Training. TriTAC also maintains a website ( http://nccic.org/tribal ) that provides program and policy information, and other useful information for CCDF administrators, including “Effective Program Strategies,” which are descriptions of successful techniques used by Tribes in the administration of their CCDF programs.
CCB resources are also directed toward tribal activities in two other TA contracts. The Conference Management Center contract coordinates the logistics for ACF Regional Office Child Care meetings, including Tribal meetings. Tribal data is addressed through the CCB's contract for a Child Care Automation Resource Center (CCARC). Through this contract, CCARC provides hands-on training on the Tribal Data Tracker , a software utility that was developed to assist Tribes with case management functions and collect data required by the ACF-700 CCDF aggregate program data report form.
Moreover, in FY 2003, CCB contributed an additional $50,000 to the Administration for Native Americans to help with logistical costs related to the ACF Native American Conference in December 2003. The CCB also supported the travel for the CCB Associate Commissioner and National Tribal Child Care Specialist, as well as the costs for contractor staff to participate in workshops and provide on-site technical assistance at this important ACF conference.
5. Federal agencies should coordinate better (since tribes are also required to coordinate their programs).
Under the leadership of the Administration for Native Americans (ANA), ACF programs have increased their tribal coordination activities. In fact, the goal of the December 2003 ACF National Native American Conference “The ACF Circle - Working Together for Successful Communities” was to s hare promising practices, successful partnerships, and cross-cutting initiatives to maximize resources with Tribal and Native communities. The planning process for this National conference served as a model for ACF program coordination. Through bi-weekly meetings, program staff shared ideas, collaborated on program agenda topics and renewed their collaborative spirit.
Following this National conference, the Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) convened a working group to discuss TA delivery mechanisms and needs within the four ACYF Bureaus: Child Care Bureau; Children's Bureau; Family and Youth Services Bureau; and Head Start Bureau. Through the establishment of this ACYF working group, staff is increasing their coordination activities, and share information on a regular basis.
6. There is little data available from the federal government (although tribes do send in their reports).
Not all Tribes receiving CCDF funds submit required data reports each year. Over the past few years, the Child Care Bureau (CCB) has been strategizing about how to provide technical assistance that meets the needs of our tribal grantees in meeting Federal data reporting requirements.
Initial efforts to increase the quality and timeliness of tribal grantee reporting included: 1) the development of an internet-based system that allows Tribes to submit their required program data electronically over the Internet; and 2) a “Storyteller” campaign that enlisted Tribes to help the CCB paint a picture of the national child care landscape by telling their "child care story" through the submission of their annual program reporting form, and supplemental narrative report.
In FY 2001, the CCB introduced a new data software utility for tribal grantees – the Tribal Data Tracker . This software was developed with the assistance of a technical assistance group, and the Child Care Automation Resource Center (CCARC), a contractor to the CCB. The Tribal Data Tracker assists tribal grantees with case management functions, such as tracking family and provider information. It also has another very important feature related to federal data reporting. By entering certain required information throughout the federal fiscal year, the Tribal Data Tracker will produce a completed tribal CCDF program data report for that fiscal year.
The CCB expects to release a Report to Congress later this year which, for the first time, will include a separate chapter on Tribal CCDF. This report will include tribal data, including the number of children and families served with CCDF funds. However, we expect the Report to Congress will include a qualifying statement explaining that although data quality is improving, it remains a big concern. Some tribal grantees have difficulty providing accurate, complete data due to a number of factors, such as staff turnover and a lack of technology resources and infrastructure. To address these issues with data quality, the CCB continues to provide technical assistance and specialized software to help Tribes with data reporting.
7. Research dollars should be made available; tribal programs are interested in testing the effectiveness of their interventions based on their own performance measures.
While priorities vary from year to year, the Child Care Bureau (CCB) typically issues an announcement seeking field initiated research and scholar applications for research purposes. The CCB expects to issue the FY 2004 research announcement in the Federal Register this spring.
Tribes and Indian students may apply for funding under the CCB's research announcement. Eligible applicants for field initiated research typically include: non-profit agencies and organizations, public and private institutions such as colleges and universities (including tribal colleges and universities), and agencies of State and local government (including tribal government agencies). Indian graduate students may participate in a scholar research application as long as: a university or college applies on the student's behalf; the student is pursing a doctorate degree; and the student anticipates completing a child care-related dissertation. Child care research is authorized by the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 as amended (CCDBG Act), 45 CFR part 74; section 418 of the Social Security Act; and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-7).
Children's Bureau
1. The Bush Administration's Title IV-E proposal and Title IV-E Amendments.
Tribes are in the best position to develop child welfare service delivery systems that meet their identified needs. The President's Child Welfare Program option provides Tribes the vehicle for doing just that and provides direct Title IV-E funding to Tribes.
2. The Adoption and Safe Families Act Program Regulations
In developing the regulations that implemented the Adoption and Safe Families Act, ACF paid particular attention to ensuring that the regulations are consistent and compatible with ICWA. We are not aware of any conflicts. If they exist we will be happy to meet with Tribal representatives to resolve any issues.
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
Tribal Child Support Enforcement Interim Rule
1. Indirect costs are not available on CSE grants, so funding is insufficient.
Indirect costs were available under the Interim Rule and under the Final Rule published March 30, 2004. Under the Final Rule, a tribe may retrieve such costs in two ways: first, as an Indirect Cost Rate determined by the Interior Department, Bureau of Indian Affairs, or as actual direct costs attributable to the program.
2. Management information systems are a major cost.
OCSE agrees. There have been a series of consultative meetings to retrieve comments and concerns from Tribes presently running Child Support Programs. These meetings will provide important input for a future OCSE Tribal Regulation on information system management.
3. Planning grants are needed.
Under the Final Rule published on March 30, 2004 funding for Start-up programming includes the planning activities necessary to develop and initiate a Child Support Enforcement Program. Such Start-up grants will be for up to two years and total funding for that time period will be up to $500,000.00. No tribal match of 10% will be required under this initial program.
4. There has not been true consultation on the final rule; tribal comments were ignored during the NPRM process.
Four consultation sessions were held in 2000 in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Anchorage, Alaska; Phoenix, Arizona and Washington D.C. on the concerns of the tribes on the Final Rule. Those comments were then responded to in the Final Rule before its submission to the Office of Management and Budget.
5. Seven years after the passage of PRWORA, there is still no final Tribal CSE rule.
The Final Rule was published on March 30, 2004.
6. Tribes are treated as states (as though they had commensurate resources).
Under the Final Rule, tribes are not required to make a match of tribal resources if they apply for Start-up funding. Under the operational program, tribes are required to match Federal resources of 90% with a match of 10%. Such requirements can be waived if a participating tribe has suffered circumstances that preclude it from making such match. Numerous other policy distinctions are made that recognize tribes’ unique status and circumstances.
7. Waivers for the tribal match are not being granted.
Under the Final Rules, tribes can obtain a waiver of the 10% Tribal Match requirement if they have suffered circumstances that preclude them from making such match. Such waivers have been granted in the past. Such waivers are not intended to be standard practice, however.
Proposal to Intercept Gambling Winnings
8. This proposal undermines self-determination and self-sufficiency of tribes (diverts primary income from tribes).
Gaming winnings will be intercepted for those individuals who have previously been determined to owe significant past-due child support debts. Those winnings will support the neediest Indian and Non-Indian children who do not receive the financial support of both parents. The Intercept Proposal is not designed to affect self-determination issues of the tribe nor divert primary income from tribes. It only intercepts winnings of individuals, both Non-Indian and Indian, who owe Child Support.
9. It impinges on the right of tribes to design programs most appropriate for their communities.
The Gaming Intercept Proposal is very narrow in its effect. It is not proposed to affect programming the tribes may maintain or develop.
10. Gaming dollars supplement many tribal programs.
OCSE acknowledges and agrees with this statement.
11. Tribes may have to shut down their CSE program if it threatens their gaming operation.
It is hoped by the Child Support Enforcement Program that, if the Gaming Intercept Proposal is passed into law, the affected tribes would do a thorough review of the impact on tribal operations before they made a decision to terminate their Tribal Child Support Enforcement program. Tribal children would be adversely affected by the loss of such tribal child support enforcement programs. Tribal and non-tribal children are affected by parents’ failure to pay child support, especially when those parents earn income in ways that do not permit wage attachment.
12. 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.
The estimate reported by Dr. Heller of $709 million over five years nationally for families obtaining child support under the Gamming Intercept proposals was projected by the Congressional Budget Office in evaluating the Intercept proposal.
