Welfare Reform
Tribal TANF Allows Flexibility to Tailor Programs, but Conditions on Reservations Make It Difficult to Move Recipients into Jobs Gao ID: GAO-02-768 July 5, 2002The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act gives Native American Indian tribes the option to administer Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs, either alone or as part of a consortium with other tribes, rather than receiving benefits and services from state TANF programs. Because of the difficult economic circumstances on many reservations, the law also gives tribal TANF programs more flexibility than it gives to states. Tribes have used various strategies to stimulate economic development, but despite these efforts, unemployment and poverty rates on reservations remain high and prospects for economic growth may be limited. To improve economic conditions on reservations, tribes operate enterprises in a range of commercial sectors. Nationally, the number of American Indian families receiving TANF assistance has declined in recent years; however, in some states, American Indians represent a large and increasing share of the state TANF caseload. To date, 174 tribes, either alone or as part of a consortium, are administering their own TANF programs and have used the flexibility in the act to tailor their tribal TANF programs to meet TANF requirements. However, many tribes have found that TANF caseload and unemployment data on American Indians is inaccurate, complicating the determination of TANF grant amounts for tribal programs and making it difficult to design and plan such programs. Tribes also lack the infrastructure, such as automated information systems, to administer their programs efficiently. Because tribes lack experience administering welfare programs, they have turned to both states and the federal government for assistance.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-02-768, Welfare Reform: Tribal TANF Allows Flexibility to Tailor Programs, but Conditions on Reservations Make It Difficult to Move Recipients into Jobs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-884
entitled 'Welfare Reform: Tribal TANF Allows Flexibility to Tailor
Programs, but Conditions on Reservations Make it Difficult to Move
Recipients into Jobs' which was released on July 5, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
July 2002:
Welfare Reform:
Tribal TANF Allows Flexibility to Tailor Programs, but Conditions on
Reservations Make it Difficult to Move Recipients into Jobs:
GAO-02-768:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Despite Tribes‘ Economic Development Efforts, Economic Conditions on
Reservations Remain Poor, and Tribes Lack Some Key Factors for Economic
Growth:
Fewer American Indians Are Receiving TANF Nationally, but This Trend
Has Not Occurred on All Reservations:
Flexibility Helps Tribal TANF Programs Meet TANF Requirements:
Tribes Face Challenges Implementing Their Programs:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Site Visits:
Appendix II: Tribal TANF Programs:
Appendix III: Tribal TANF Work Activities:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Gaming and Other Sectors in Which Tribes Own Enterprises and
Provide Per Capita Payments:
Table 2: Support Services not Available on Reservations:
Table 3: State and Tribal TANF Program Adults Engaged in Work
Activities by Type of Activity:
Table 4: All Families Work Participation Rate Requirements for Selected
States and Tribes (FY 2000):
Table 5: Survey Numbers and Response Rates:
Table 6:Activities That Count Toward Meeting Work Participation Rate
Requirements As Defined by Tribal TANF Programs:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Tribes That Reported Owning an Enterprise:
Figure 2: Tribally Owned Enterprises:
Figure 3: Counties with Predominantly American Indians Have High
Poverty Rates:
Figure 4: Many Indian Reservations Are Isolated Geographically:
Figure 5: Proportion of Cash Assistance Caseload Made Up of American
Indians:
Figure 6: Self-Employed Navajo Artisan:
Figure 7: Number of All Tribal TANF Programs Counting Various Work
Activities:
Figure 8: Tribal TANF Program Service Areas:
Figure 9: Tribal TANF Service Populations:
Figure 10: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe‘s Mobile Computer
Training Center:
Figure 11: Facilities Used for Tribal TANF Programs:
Figure 12: Map of Federally Recognized American Indian Tribes, Alaska
Nonprofit Corporations, and Tribal TANF Programs:
Abbreviations:
AFDC: Aid to Families with Dependent Children:
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 5, 2002:
The Honorable Max Baucus:
The Honorable Jeff Bingaman:
The Honorable Kent Conrad:
The Honorable Tom Daschle:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
United States Senate:
Recognizing the sovereignty of American Indian and Native Alaskan
tribes, [Footnote 1] the Congress included provisions in the 1996
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) that give tribes the option to administer Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) programs either alone or as part of a
consortium with other tribes rather than receiving benefits and
services from state TANF programs. Because of the difficult economic
circumstances on many reservations, the law also gives tribal TANF
programs more flexibility than it gives to states to design their
programs to meet TANF requirements. To date, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (HHS) has approved 36 tribal TANF programs, which
serve over 170 tribes. These programs are still in the early stages of
implementation; half of the programs have been operating for fewer than
3 years.
Although the welfare population, in general, and state TANF programs
have been widely studied, less is known about TANF recipients who are
American Indian, or about tribal TANF programs. To assist the Congress
in its deliberations concerning the reauthorization of PRWORA and in its
assessments of various proposals for changing the tribal TANF provisions
in the act, this report provides information on (1) the economic
conditions and the prospects for economic growth on reservations;
[Footnote 2] (2) how the number of American Indians receiving TANF
assistance has changed in both state and tribal programs since the
welfare reform law was enacted; (3) how tribes have used the
flexibility in PRWORA in administering tribal TANF programs; and (4)
challenges tribes face in implementing their tribal TANF programs.
To obtain this information, we mailed a questionnaire to the TANF
program directors in each of the 34 states where at least one federally
recognized Indian tribe is based, the 36 tribal TANF programs, and the
remaining 334 federally recognized tribes. [Footnote 3] We received
responses from all 34 states (100 percent), from 28 of the 36 tribes
with TANF programs (78 percent), and 124 of the 334 tribes (37
percent). Because of the relatively low number of tribes responding,
the results of our survey cannot be generalized beyond the experiences
of those tribes that responded. [Footnote 4] We also met with tribal
leaders and program officials of 12 tribes in 5 states”Arizona, Idaho,
Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota”as well as state TANF officials
in those states. Finally, we interviewed representatives of American
Indian organizations, as well as federal officials from HHS‘
Administration for Children and Families and the Department of the
Interior‘s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). We conducted this review in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See
app. I for a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.)
Results in Brief:
Tribes have used various strategies to stimulate economic development,
but despite these efforts, unemployment and poverty rates on
reservations remain high and prospects for economic growth may be
limited. To improve economic conditions on reservations, tribes operate
enterprises in a range of commercial sectors. While some tribes
encourage private companies owned by nonmembers to locate on their
reservations, 87 tribes reported on our survey that they place more
emphasis on promoting tribally owned enterprises. However, not all
tribally owned enterprises generate substantial revenues. For example,
contrary to the common perception that all tribally owned casinos are
highly profitable, few are lucrative. Despite the tribes‘ efforts to
stimulate the economy on reservations, most Indians living on
reservations are poor and unemployment rates are high. Fifty-seven
tribes with reservations reported that at least half of all families
living on their reservations had incomes below the federal poverty
level. Prospects for improving the economic conditions of families
living on reservations may be limited because many reservations lack
some of the key factors shown to be associated with economic growth,
for example, a skilled workforce and easy access to markets.
Nationally, the number of American Indian families receiving TANF
assistance has declined in recent years; however, in some states,
American Indians represent a large and increasing share of the state
TANF caseload. Furthermore, on some reservations, caseloads have
remained constant or even increased: 49 tribes with reservations
reported that their caseloads had stayed the same or increased over the
past few years. Reasons for this trend include the scarcity of jobs on
reservations; the difficulty residents have accessing work supports
they need, for example, job training and child care; and cultural or
religious ties to tribal lands and strong ties to families and
communities that make it difficult for many American Indians to
relocate. In addition, like many other TANF recipients, many American
Indian TANF recipients have characteristics such as low education levels
and few job skills, which can make it difficult for them to get and keep
those jobs that are on reservations.
To date, 174 tribes, either alone or as part of a consortium, are
administering their own TANF programs and have used the flexibility in
PRWORA to tailor their tribal TANF programs to meet TANF requirements.
Some tribes have taken advantage of provisions that allow them to
define a wide spectrum of work activities to accommodate the training
needs and cultural traditions of their recipients. For example, to
encourage family formation, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes
allow parenting and family strengthening activities to count as a work
activity. Tribal TANF programs have also used the flexibility in the
law to set their own work participation rate requirements, time limits,
and eligibility rules. Like states, the tribal TANF programs have also
used their flexibility to determine what work supports to provide to
tribal recipients. For example, the majority of tribes responding to
our survey devoted TANF funds to job training, work experience, and job
search activities.
Tribes have faced a number of challenges in implementing tribal TANF
programs. Many tribes have found that TANF caseload and unemployment
data on American Indians is inaccurate, complicating the determination
of TANF grant amounts for tribal programs and making it difficult to
design and plan such programs. Tribes also lack infrastructure, such as
automated information systems, to administer their programs efficiently”
infrastructure states already had from administering previous welfare
programs. Tribes have had to rely on contributions from a variety of
different sources in addition to their basic TANF grants to cover tribal
TANF start-up costs and ongoing operating expenses. Finally, because
tribes lack experience administering welfare programs, they have turned
to both states and the federal government for assistance. However,
tribes have not received assistance in conducting feasibility studies
that will allow them to make informed decisions about administering
tribal TANF programs, nor do they have easy access to information about
strategies other tribes have used to engage recipients in productive
work activities given the economic conditions on reservations.
Tribal TANF programs are still in their early stages. So, it is not yet
clear whether the flexibility in program design provided to tribal TANF
programs alone will enable them to achieve TANF requirements given the
economic conditions on reservations. Consequently, we are recommending
that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
provide more assistance to tribes to ensure that they have the
information they need to make informed decisions regarding whether it is
feasible to administer tribal TANF and can draw on the experiences of
other tribal programs in designing their own programs.
Background:
The Congress passed PRWORA in 1996, making sweeping changes to national
welfare policy and placing new emphasis on the goal of work and
personal responsibility. The Congress recognized the unique economic
hardship facing the 40 percent of American Indians living on
reservations with high unemployment by effectively extending the law‘s
60-month time limit on receipt of TANF cash assistance. [Footnote 5]
Furthermore, the act gave federally recognized American Indian tribes
the option to administer their own TANF programs either individually or
as part of a consortium, an option they did not have in the past. (See
app. II for a list of tribal TANF programs and a map showing their
locations.) Under the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)
Program, the precursor to TANF, tribal members enrolled in state
welfare programs.
Under PRWORA, tribes implementing their own TANF programs have greater
flexibility than states in some areas. For example, for state programs,
PRWORA sets numerical requirements for the percentage of adults to be
participating in work activities and specifically defines the approved
work activities that count for the purposes of meeting these federal
participation rates. [Footnote 6] The law set minimum requirements for
state work participation rates at 25 percent in fiscal year 1997,
increasing to 50 percent in fiscal year 2002. In contrast, tribes can
set their own participation rate requirements and may define work
activities more broadly, subject to approval from HHS. Finally, while
states must adhere to a federal time limit on cash benefits of 60
months or less, tribal programs can set their own time limits on
welfare-related services, which includes cash benefits. Tribes have the
same flexibility as states to set their own eligibility requirements
and to determine what policies will govern mandatory sanctions for
noncompliance with program rules. Tribes and states also have the same
flexibility to determine what types of work supports, such as child
care, transportation, and job training, they will provide to
recipients.
Some of the requirements to which tribal TANF programs are subject
differ from those to which states are subject. For example, eligible
tribes must submit a 3-year tribal TANF plan directly to HHS for review
and approval; HHS does not approve states‘ plans, though it certifies
that they are complete. Unlike states, whose TANF grants are based on
the highest of three possible funding formulas, tribal grants must be
based on the amount the state spent in fiscal year 1994 for all
American Indians residing in the tribe‘s designated service area. In
addition, tribes are not eligible for several sources of additional
TANF funding that were originally provided for the states. These
include performance bonuses, a population/poverty adjuster (for high-
population/low-spending states), and a contingency fund for states
experiencing economic downturns. Finally, whereas a state can receive a
caseload reduction credit, which reduces its work participation rate
requirement when its caseload falls, tribes are not eligible to receive
caseload reduction credits.
The relationships of tribal TANF programs and state governments can be
ambiguous under the law. States have the option to include families
being served by tribal TANF programs or a tribal work program in their
own calculations of state TANF participation rates. Although states
have no formal role in the Tribal TANF plan approval process, tribes
can enter into partnerships with the states for additional funding and
coordination of services. However, the law is clear that the amount of
the tribal grant is subtracted from the state‘s total grant, and the
state‘s maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement is also reduced by a
corresponding amount. [Footnote 7] In addition, tribes have the option
to ’retro-cede“ their program by returning it to the state, although no
tribe has yet exercised this option.
According to the 2000 Census, about 2.5 million U.S. residents identify
themselves as solely of American Indian or Alaska Native origin.
Furthermore, 1.6 million members are enrolled in about 560 federally
recognized tribes. American Indians are disproportionately poor. The
Census Bureau reports that during the period 1998 to 2000, about a
quarter of American Indians lived in poverty, more than double the rate
of people of all races.
Under U.S. law, federally recognized American Indian tribes”sometimes
referred to as nations, bands, pueblos, communities, rancherias, or
villages”are sovereign governments. The federal government has
financial obligations to tribes on the basis of treaties and overall
trust responsibility. As officially recognized sovereign entities, many
tribes have increasingly taken control of programs that serve tribal
members. These efforts have been supported by laws such as the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638), which
permits the federal government to contract with tribes to administer
many services provided to tribal members.
Despite Tribes‘ Economic Development Efforts, Economic Conditions on
Reservations Remain Poor, and Tribes Lack Some Key Factors for Economic
Growth:
Tribes have used various strategies to stimulate economic development;
however, unemployment and poverty rates remain high on reservations.
To improve the economy on reservations, tribes own many types of
enterprises. [Footnote 8] Despite these efforts, most Indians living on
reservations are poor, and many tribes lack some of the key factors
research has shown to be associated with economic growth on
reservations.
Tribes Primarily Rely on Developing Tribally Owned Enterprises to
Stimulate the Economy on Reservations:
Although some tribes encourage private companies owned by nonmembers to
locate on their reservations, many tribes responding to our survey
question place more emphasis on developing tribally owned enterprises.
Eighty-six tribes responding to our survey question reported that they
place more emphasis on promoting tribally owned enterprises than on
encouraging private companies owned by nonmembers to locate on
reservations.
Tribes have launched their own enterprises in a number of sectors, which
could include gaming, tourism, manufacturing, natural resources, and
agriculture or ranching (see fig. 1). Of the tribes with enterprises
that responded to our survey question, 21 have enterprises that are
concentrated in a single sector and 94 have enterprises in more than one
sector.
Figure 1: Number of Tribes That Reported Owning an Enterprise:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Type of enterprise: Gaming;
Number of tribes (n=116): 87.
Type of enterprise: Tourism;
Number of tribes (n=116): 56.
Type of enterprise: Agriculture/ranching;
Number of tribes (n=116): 45.
Type of enterprise: Natural resources;
Number of tribes (n=116): 50.
Type of enterprise: Manufacturing;
Number of tribes (n=116): 19.
Type of enterprise: Other;
Number of tribes (n=116): 53.
Note: Tribes can own enterprises in multiple sectors.
Source: GAO survey of tribes.
[End of figure]
In establishing enterprises, some tribes have drawn on their cultural
and land-based resources, others have concentrated on providing goods
and services to those living on the reservations, while still others
have embraced new technologies. The Nez Perce tribe in Idaho,
historically known for breeding Appaloosa horses, generates revenue for
the tribe by selling horses that they have crossbred between the
Appaloosa and Akhal-Teke, horses that are registered in the Nez Perce
registry. The White Mountain Apache tribe of Arizona charges hunters up
to $19,500 for a permit to hunt elk on its reservation. They also
charge lesser amounts for permits for fishing and camping on their
land. In Montana, the Blackfeet tribe operates the cable television
service on the reservation. The tribe also procures and delivers
bottled water to the large number of residents who do not have any
access to potable water. The Cheyenne River Sioux tribe in South Dakota
operates the only telephone company serving the reservation. Another
tribally owned enterprise converts paper documents into electronic
media for outside businesses.
Figure 2: Tribally Owned Enterprises:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a series of photographs of Tribally Owned Enterprises,
including the following:
* Nez Perce Tribe Horse Registry;
* San Carlos Apache Tribe, sawmill;
* Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Flathead Stickers, a
subsidiary of S&K Holding Company, specialty wood products.
[End of figure]
Many tribes own and operate gaming facilities, and they vary in size and
the amount of revenue generated. Some facilities, such as the Coeur
d‘Alene facility in Idaho, are part of a hotel and restaurant complex,
while others, like the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes on the Fort Peck
reservation in Montana are part of a convenience store. Contrary to the
common perception that tribal gaming has dramatically improved the
economic circumstances for many tribes, the most lucrative facilities
account for a small percentage of all tribally owned gaming facilities.
According to our 2001 report, in 1999, 27 of the 193 tribes that
operated gaming facilities generated two-thirds of total gaming
revenue. [Footnote 9] For example, the Coeur d‘Alene gaming facility,
near Spokane, Washington, and Lake Coeur d‘Alene, a major tourist area,
has generated profits for the tribe. In contrast, officials from the
San Carlos Apache Tribe indicated that its gaming facility, located in
a remote area, 90 miles from Phoenix, Arizona, barely makes enough
money to cover its costs. Furthermore, gaming facilities do not always
generate employment for tribal members. Nationally, only a quarter of
all jobs in tribally operated gaming facilities are held by American
Indians. [Footnote 10]
The practice of distributing gaming royalties to tribal members is not
widespread and, contrary to common perception, payments that are made
are not making tribal members wealthy. About a quarter of the tribes
that responded to our survey question distributed a portion of their
revenues from gaming facilities and other enterprises through per
capita payments to members. Of the tribes that reported operating a
gaming facility, 28 reported providing per capita payments to members.
Of those, 16 provided payments of less than $5,000 (see table 1).
Table 1: Gaming and Other Sectors in Which Tribes Own Enterprises and
Provide Per Capita Payments:
Gaming and other sectors: No enterprises;
Number of tribes: 28;
Number of tribes with payments: 1;
Amount of annual per capita payment: less than $500: 0;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $500-1,499: 0;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $1,500-4,999: 1;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $5,000+: 0.
Gaming and other sectors: Gaming only;
Number of tribes: 10;
Number of tribes with payments: 1;
Amount of annual per capita payment: less than $500: 0;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $500-1,499: 0;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $1,500-4,999: 1;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $5,000+: 0.
Gaming and other sectors: Gaming and one or more enterprises in
other sectors;
Number of tribes: 77;
Number of tribes with payments: 27;
Amount of annual per capita payment: less than $500: 3;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $500-1,499: 8;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $1,500-4,999: 4;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $5,000+: 12.
Gaming and other sectors: One or more enterprises in sectors other
than gaming, but no gaming;
Number of tribes: 28;
Number of tribes with payments: 2;
Amount of annual per capita payment: less than $500: 2;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $500-1,499: 0;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $1,500-4,999: 0;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $5,000+: 0.
Gaming and other sectors: Total;
Number of tribes: 143;
Number of tribes with payments: 31;
Amount of annual per capita payment: less than $500: 5;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $500-1,499: 8;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $1,500-4,999: 6;
Amount of annual per capita payment: $5,000+: 12.
Source: GAO survey of tribes.
[End of table]
Despite Economic Development Activities, Indians Living on Reservations
Continue to Have High Poverty and Unemployment Rates:
Despite tribes‘ efforts to stimulate the economy on reservations,
American Indian families on reservations still have high poverty rates.
Fifty-seven tribes with reservations that responded to our survey
question reported that at least half of all families living on their
reservations had incomes below the federal poverty level. [Footnote 11]
Poverty rates are also high among Indians who are employed and living
on or near reservations. According to BIA (the only regularly collected
source of poverty and unemployment data on all U.S. reservations), one-
third of employed tribal members had incomes below the federal poverty
level in 1999”the most recent year for which data are available. Three-
fourths of the tribes with reservations responding to our survey
question indicated their level of poverty had remained the same or
increased since 1996. [Footnote 12]
Census data on reservations and county-level data show that poverty
rates are high in counties where the population is predominately
American Indian. For example, as shown in figure 3, for the 26 counties
with a majority of American Indians”all of which have a reservation or
Alaska Native entity”the median poverty rate is over 32 percent, or
twice the median poverty rate of 14 percent for counties nationwide.
Figure 3: Counties with Predominantly American Indians Have High
Poverty Rates:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following
approximated data:
Counties with Predominantly American Indians Have High Poverty Rates:
County (state): Ziebach (SD);
Poverty rate: 47%.
County (state): Todd (SD);
Poverty rate: 47%.
County (state): Shannon (SD);
Poverty rate: 43%.
County (state): Apache (AZ);
Poverty rate: 40%.
County (state): Wade Hampton (AK);
Poverty rate: 40%.
County (state): Buffalo (ND);
Poverty rate: 39%.
County (state): Sioux (ND);
Poverty rate: 37%.
County (state): Corson (SD);
Poverty rate: 37%.
County (state): Bennett (SD);
Poverty rate: 36%.
County (state): McKinley (NM);
Poverty rate: 35%.
County (state): Glacier (MT);
Poverty rate: 34%.
County (state): Mellette (SD);
Poverty rate: 34%.
County (state): Bethel (AK);
Poverty rate: 33%.
County (state): Dewey (SD);
Poverty rate: 33%.
County (state): Roosevelt (MT);
Poverty rate: 32%.
County (state): Rolette (ND);
Poverty rate: 31%;
County (state): San Juan (UT);
Poverty rate: 30%.
County (state): Big Horn (MT);
Poverty rate: 29%.
County (state): Dillingham (AK);
Poverty rate: 28%.
County (state): Lake (AK);
Poverty rate: 26%.
County (state): Menominee (WI);
Poverty rate: 25%.
County (state): Nome (AK);
Poverty rate: 23%;
County (state): Yukon-Koyukuk (AK);
Poverty rate: 23%;
County (state): Thurston (NE);
Poverty rate: 22%.
County (state): Northwest Arctic (AK);
Poverty rate: 20%.
County (state): North Slope (AK);
Poverty rate: 6%.
County (state): All U.S. counties;
Poverty rate: 15%.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
[End of table]
BIA reports unemployment rates on reservations are extremely high.
[Footnote 13] In 1999”the most recent year for which data are
available”more than 40 percent of adults living on or near reservations
between the ages of 16 and 64 were unemployed. [Footnote 14] According
to our survey and site visits, unemployment rates on reservations have
changed little over time. Ninety-four tribes reported that the
unemployment rate was the same or higher than in 1996. In addition,
according to tribal officials of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in North
Dakota, about 75 percent of all adults were not employed, a figure that
had not changed in the last several years. Tribal officials at the Fort
Peck reservation in Montana said 60 to 70 percent of their adults were
not employed; according to BIA, the unemployment rate has been high
since 1995.
Many Tribes Lack Key Factors Associated with Economic Growth:
Many tribes lack some of the key factors shown to be important for
economic growth on reservations. Some tribal officials we spoke with
identified a lack of accessibility to population centers, a limited
number of workers with appropriate skills and expertise, and inadequate
physical infrastructure as barriers to economic development on their
reservations. In addition, research has shown that certain political
and organizational factors such as a strong sense of sovereignty,
effective governing institutions, and development of a long-term
economic strategy can also affect the prospects for economic growth on
reservations.
Tribal officials we talked with said that a lack of education and job
skills among workers living on the reservation hinders economic growth.
For example, a modular home manufacturing plant on the Blackfeet
Reservation in Montana has had trouble finding and keeping enough
workers with construction skills to expand its business. To overcome
this obstacle, the enterprise has worked with the local community
college to offer construction training to tribal members on the
reservation. The gaming facility owned by the White Mountain Apache
tribe had to hire nontribal members. Because tribal members lack the
basic work and life skills needed to hold such jobs, tribal officials
said that nonmembers hold most of the better-paid jobs.
Furthermore, the isolated geographic location and distance from markets
of many reservations limits their access to markets and makes it
difficult for many businesses to operate successfully. Of the tribes
that responded to our survey question, 133 indicated that their
reservation was primarily rural or isolated. Some reservations, such as
the Navajo reservation, take up millions of acres and span more than
one state. The communities on some reservations can be extremely
isolated. For example, tribal members on the Fort Peck reservation had
to drive 70 miles to shop for clothing and other household necessities.
On the White Mountain Apache reservation, tribal officials said that
the road to one isolated community, the village of Cibecue, ’doesn‘t go
anywhere, it just ends at Cibecue.“
Figure 4: Many Indian Reservations Are Isolated Geographically:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a series of photographs depicting the following:
* Road to Hopi reservation;
* Hopi reservation;
* View of Navajo reservation from Hopi reservation;
* Road to Cibecue, White Mountain Apache reservation.
[End of figure]
The physical infrastructure”such as roads, electricity, water, and
suitable land for building”that is necessary to navigate remote areas
or build enterprises does not exist on many reservations and hinders
many potential economic development efforts. For example, even large
reservations, such as the Cheyenne River Sioux, lack paved roads and
water and sewer services in some communities. In addition, areas on some
reservations lack electricity and telephones. The Nez Perce Reservation
in Idaho has a shortage of land that is suitable for building
facilities because much of their land is in a flood plain.
Research has shown that other factors, including fully exercised
sovereignty, effective governing institutions, and a strategic
orientation, are also important for economic growth on reservations.
[Footnote 15] Tribes with a strong sense of sovereignty fully exercise
the authority that comes with sovereignty”controlling and being
accountable for use of their resources. Governing institutions that are
effective usually make decisions that are consistent with tribal
culture and have separate structures for making business decisions and
decisions regarding tribal governance. [Footnote 16] Tribes with a
strategic orientation have a formal approach for focusing on developing
and accomplishing long-term economic development goals. Successfully
integrating these factors has been shown to help tribes create an
environment that is attractive and conducive to stimulating and
sustaining economic development efforts. However, the extent each of
these factors is present in tribes varies. For example, 56 of the
tribes that responded to our survey question do not appear to have
taken a formalized approach to economic development since they did not
have a written plan for improving economic conditions on the
reservation. In addition, 78 said their tribe did not have an economic
development committee or organization that is separate from their
tribal government, even though research has shown that skilled business
people are the best ones to make business decisions, free from the
interference of tribal leadership.
Fewer American Indians Are Receiving TANF Nationally, but This Trend
Has Not Occurred on All Reservations:
Nationally, the number of American Indian families receiving cash
assistance decreased between 1994 and 2001. However, in some states, the
proportion of the TANF caseload made up of American Indian families has
increased. Furthermore, on some reservations, the number of families on
TANF has remained the same or even increased due to the scarcity of jobs
and other reasons.
The Number of American Indian Families Receiving Cash Assistance Has
Decreased:
The number of American Indian families receiving cash assistance in
state TANF programs in the 34 states with federally recognized Indian
tribes decreased between 1994 and 2001, from almost 68,000 to about
26,000. [Footnote 17] Part of this decline occurred because many
American Indian TANF recipients were served by tribal TANF programs in
2001 and are not included in the data. While data on tribal TANF
program caseloads are not available for 2001, tribes have estimated
that they could be serving as many as 22,000 families. Even if those
participating in tribal TANF programs were taken into account, the
decline in American Indian families receiving TANF of at least 30
percent is significant. In comparison, the number of all families
receiving TANF dropped by over half from about 3.4 million families in
1994 to about 1.5 million in 2001.
In Some States, American Indians Represent an Increasing Proportion of
TANF Families:
In some states, the share of the caseload made up of American Indians
has risen. According to HHS data, the share of the TANF caseload made
up of American Indians increased in 6 of the 34 states with federally
recognized tribes. [Footnote 18] As shown in figure 5, the increase has
been greatest in South Dakota, Montana, and North Dakota. In South
Dakota, the proportion of cash assistance families that were American
Indian increased from about 60 percent in 1994 to about 80 percent in
2001. According to the 2000 census, about 8 percent of South Dakota‘s
population were American Indians. [Footnote 19]
Figure 5: Proportion of Cash Assistance Caseload Made Up of American
Indians:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Proportion of Cash Assistance Caseload Made Up of American Indians:
State: Minnesota;
1994: 5.9%;
2001: 9.4%.
State: Montana;
1994: 28.7%;
2001: 45.2%.
State: Nebraska;
1994: 6.1%;
2001: 7.8%.
State: North Dakota;
1994: 41.4%;
2001: 54.9%.
State: South Dakota;
1994: 57.3%;
2001: 78.2%.
State: Wyoming;
1994: 10.7%;
2001: 16.0%.
Source: HHS.
[End of figure]
On Some Reservations, TANF Caseloads Have Stayed the Same or Increased:
Because many tribes on reservations reported to us that their TANF
caseloads had stayed the same or increased, it is likely that the
decline in the number of American Indians receiving TANF has
predominantly occurred among those not living on reservations, who
represent a majority of all American Indians. Forty-seven tribes with
reservations responding to our survey question reported that the number
of tribal members receiving TANF was about the same size or larger than
it had been in 1997. The Salt River community in Arizona attributed the
slight increase in their TANF caseload at least in part to tribal
members returning to the reservation as they approached the 24-month
time limit in the state‘s TANF program (their tribal TANF program has a
60-month limit). The Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux tribe, headquartered in
South Dakota, indicated that its caseload has remained about the same
because, even though about 80 percent of the original tribal TANF
recipients were no longer receiving TANF, new families keep coming on
the rolls. The Coeur d‘Alene tribe in Idaho indicated that the number
of cases had actually increased since their tribal TANF program began
because of its tribal TANF program‘s outreach efforts.
Several Factors May Contribute to Lack of Caseload Decline:
Several factors may contribute to the lack of welfare caseload decline
among American Indians in certain places. These include the scarcity of
jobs on reservations; the difficulty reservation residents have
accessing work supports, such as job training and child care; and
cultural or religious ties to tribal lands and strong ties to families
and communities that make it difficult for many American Indians to
relocate. In addition, like many other TANF recipients, many American
Indian TANF recipients have characteristics such as low education
levels and few job skills, which can make it difficult for them to get
and keep jobs.
Scarcity of jobs on reservations:
Government officials, tribal representatives, and researchers all
reported that on reservations the primary impediment to decreasing the
number of American Indians on TANF is the scarcity of jobs. Navajo
Tribal TANF officials indicated that while thousands of Navajos have
left the reservation and found employment elsewhere, lack of jobs is
still the major hurdle to achieving TANF requirements. Recent studies
concluded that job scarcity in Indian country is an overwhelming
barrier to the success of employment and job training programs,
including TANF, and that the lack of jobs on many reservations is a
serious handicap to moving people from welfare to work. [Footnote
20,21]
On many reservations, the government sector is the primary employer.
Consistent with the philosophy of promoting self-governance, during the
last 30 years tribes have taken over reservation programs that used to
be performed by the federal government. As management responsibility was
transferred, the number of government sector jobs grew rapidly as tribes
hired more people to manage health, social, and housing programs and
schools. Although nationally, less than 20 percent of workers are in
public sector jobs, the tribes we surveyed reported that, on average,
about 42 percent of employed tribal members work for federal, state,
county, and tribal governments. The tribes we surveyed reported that,
on average, 25 percent of employed tribal members worked for tribal
governments; however, in some cases this percentage was much higher.
About one-fourth of the tribes responding to our survey question
reported that 50 percent or more of their employed tribal members
worked for the tribal government. Many tribal members are also employed
by state or federal government agencies. For example, in the summer BIA
hires American Indians to work as firefighters.
As noted previously, many tribes are also attempting to operate
commercial enterprises, but these initiatives have been at best only
moderately successful in generating jobs. On average, the tribes
responding to our survey reported that an average of 11 percent of
employed tribal members were employed by tribally owned commercial
enterprises.
Few private sector opportunities exist on reservations. Tribes
responding to our survey reported that, on average, 40 percent of their
employed tribal members worked for privately owned commercial
enterprises. An additional 4 percent of employed tribal members were
self-employed. This lack of private sector opportunities appears to be
the result of a lack of private sector commercial activity on
reservations. What little commercial activity there is generates few
jobs. Sixty-nine tribes reported that no private sector enterprises
employing 15 or more workers existed on or within 10 miles of their
tribal lands. A consultant‘s study of the Standing Rock Sioux
Reservation, which straddles the border of North and South Dakota,
reported that in 1999 only 34 private employers operated on the
reservation: they employed only 85 full-time workers. BIA reports that
in 1999 over 5,000 adult tribal members were available for work on or
near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Similarly, as of 1997, the
Navajo Nation reported only 52 employers with 100 employees or more,
most of which were schools or hospitals; the Navajo Nation considered
only 13 to be ’genuine businesses.“ These 13 establishments employed
about 4,700 workers; the Navajo Nation reported its potential labor
force at over 50,000.
Figure 6: Self-Employed Navajo Artisan:
[See PDF for image]
This figure contains two photographs of a self-employed Navajo artisan.
[End of figure]
Many jobs that are available to tribal members are seasonal. For
example, Glacier National Park sometimes hires members of the Blackfeet
reservation for the peak tourist season. Forty-five tribes reported that
about half or more of the jobs held by tribal members were seasonal;
only 22 reported that all or almost all jobs held by tribal members
were year-round.
Finally, federal, state, and tribal officials that we spoke with
reported that, due to cultural or religious ties to tribal lands and
strong ties to families and communities that make it difficult for many
American Indians to relocate, substantial numbers of tribal members
choose not to leave tribal lands to obtain employment. Under federal
law, American Indian tribes are sovereign nations, and American Indians
are citizens of those nations in addition to being U.S. citizens.
Lack of access to work supports:
In some cases, TANF recipients on reservations do not have easy access
to services they may need to enable them to obtain employment, including
transportation, child care, job training, job search services, and
educational programs. While most tribes that have opted to administer
their own TANF programs have these types of services available on their
reservations, a significant number of tribes that are served by state
TANF programs do not have certain services available on their
reservations (see table 2).
Table 2: Support Services not Available on Reservations:
Service: Transportation;
Tribes without TANF programs reporting service not available on
reservation: 42.
Service: Child care;
Tribes without TANF programs reporting service not available on
reservation: 23.
Service: Classes/tutoring in reading;
Tribes without TANF programs reporting service not available on
reservation: 21.
Service: Classes/tutoring in English language skills;
Tribes without TANF programs reporting service not available on
reservation: 31.
Service: Other education: GED or high school diploma;
Tribes without TANF programs reporting service not available on
reservation: 28.
Service: Training for particular job;
Tribes without TANF programs reporting service not available on
reservation: 41.
Service: Work experience programs;
Tribes without TANF programs reporting service not available on
reservation: 31.
Service: Job search, screening/assessment, and other employment
services;
Tribes without TANF programs reporting service not available on
reservation: 40.
Service: Treatment for alcohol or substance abuse;
Tribes without TANF programs reporting service not available on
reservation: 26.
Service: Other mental health services;
Tribes without TANF programs reporting service not available on
reservation: 27.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of table]
Characteristics that impede employment:
Like other TANF recipients, some American Indian TANF recipients have
characteristics that make it difficult for them to get and keep jobs.
In a previous report, we found that research has shown that a
substantial share of TANF recipients have characteristics that make
employment difficult, such as substance abuse, poor mental or physical
health, disability, low educational attainment, limited work
experience, low basic skills, or exposure to domestic violence.
[Footnote 22] Tribes that responded to our survey reported that many
American Indian TANF recipients share these characteristics. For
example, 29 tribes that responded to our survey reported that more than
40 percent of their recipients needed mental health services, and 43
tribes reported that more than 40 percent of their recipients needed
education to receive a high school diploma or equivalency.
Tribal officials we met with during our site visits also noted that
many of their recipients had characteristics that impede employment.
For example, social service workers from the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community of Arizona reported that almost none of their TANF
recipients had a high school diploma, and some are only reading at the
third or fourth grade level. Consequently, the primary work activity
for most of their recipients is education. Similarly, officials from
the San Carlos Apache tribe of Arizona reported that 80 percent of
their TANF recipients had not finished high school, and many were
reading at the elementary school level. Both the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community and the Nez Perce tribe of Idaho reported
that their residents have high rates of diabetes. Not only is diabetes
a health problem for adults, but also the high incidence of the disease
among their children increases the difficulty of finding appropriate
child care. The Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux tribe, headquartered in of
South Dakota, found that about one-third of TANF applicants assessed
had alcohol dependency problems. Although the tribe has a treatment
facility, tribal officials said that it has only 12 slots for inpatient
care, which these officials deem insufficient.
Flexibility Helps Tribal TANF Programs Meet TANF Requirements:
PRWORA gives tribal TANF programs flexibility in many areas to tailor
their programs to their communities, for example, by defining their own
work activities and work participation rate requirements, time limits,
and eligibility requirements. Twenty-two tribal TANF program
administrators reported that the flexibility greatly influenced their
tribe‘s decision to take on the responsibility of administering the
program. Some tribes have taken advantage of provisions that allow them
to define a wide spectrum of work activities to accommodate the
training needs and cultural traditions of their recipients. Others have
modified the rules and procedures governing work participation rate
requirements, time limits, and eligibility. Like states, they have also
used their flexibility to determine what supports to provide to tribal
recipients.
Tribes Use Flexibility to Define a Broader Array of Work Activities
than States:
The 36 tribal TANF programs are given the flexibility to define the
activities they count toward meeting the work participation requirement
more broadly than state TANF programs, subject to approval by HHS.
According to data provided by tribal TANF programs to HHS, about a fifth
of all adults engaged in work activities participate in activities that
would not count toward meeting work participation rate requirements
under state plans (see fig. 7), but do count toward meeting work
participation requirements under tribal 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 towards meeting the TANF
work requirement. (See app. III for the work activities accepted by
each tribal TANF program.)
Figure 7: Number of All Tribal TANF Programs Counting Various Work
Activities:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Program: Cultural activities;
Number of tribes: 14.
Program: Counseling/treatment;
Number of tribes: 12.
Program: Self-employment;
Number of tribes: 9.
Program: Life skills/Parenting;
Number of tribes: 7.
Program: Subsistence activities;
Number of tribes: 7.
Program: Post-secondary education;
Number of tribes: 4.
Program: NEW participation[A];
Number of tribes: 3.
Program: Commuting time;
Number of tribes: 1.
Program: Same as PRWORA;
Number of tribes: 13.
[A] Participation in tribal Native Employment Works (NEW) program, a
tribally administered work activities program.
Source: HHS.
[End of figure]
In general, rather than adopting an approach similar to most states that
emphasizes job search and work, [Footnote 23] tribal TANF programs tend
to encourage recipients to engage in alternative work activities. In
fiscal year 2001, 43.2 percent of adults enrolled in state TANF
programs were engaged in work activities. In comparison, HHS has
reported that in fiscal year 2000, the overall work participation rate
for all families in tribal TANF programs averaged about 37 percent. As
shown in table 3, a majority of adults enrolled in state TANF programs
who were engaged in work activities, 60 percent, were in unsubsidized
jobs. In contrast, only a third of adults engaged in work activities in
tribal TANF programs were in unsubsidized jobs. Relative to state TANF
programs, tribal TANF programs have more adults engaged in job search,
job training, education, and other activities, many of which are not
counted toward meeting work participation rate requirements under state
TANF programs.
Table 3: State and Tribal TANF Program Adults Engaged in Work
Activities by Type of Activity:
Activity: Unsubsidized employment;
State TANF programs FY 2001 (percent): 60.0;
Tribal TANF programs FY 2000 (percent): 33.2.
Activity: Work preparation[A];
State TANF programs FY 2001 (percent): 15.7;
Tribal TANF programs FY 2000 (percent): 17.6.
Activity: Job search/job readiness;
State TANF programs FY 2001 (percent): 14.4;
Tribal TANF programs FY 2000 (percent): 29.1.
Activity: Job training/education;
State TANF programs FY 2001 (percent): 17.6;
Tribal TANF programs FY 2000 (percent): 28.1.
Activity: Other[B];
State TANF programs FY 2001 (percent): 10.6;
Tribal TANF programs FY 2000 (percent): 21.7.
[A] Includes subsidized jobs, on-the-job training, work experience, and
community service activities.
[B] Includes activities allowed under state waivers, activities allowed
under tribal TANF plans, and provision of child care.
Source: HHS.
[End of table]
Officials from several of the tribes we visited reported that their
tribal TANF programs emphasize education and training activities
because only a small proportion of recipients have completed high
school and many lack basic literacy skills. Tribes emphasize education
and training activities to varying degrees. For example, the White
Mountain Apache tribal TANF program reported that a quarter of their
adult TANF recipients were enrolled in classes to enable them to get a
high school diploma or its equivalent, and a fifth were receiving
employment services intended to help them move directly into
employment. In contrast, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribal
TANF program required all adult recipients to engage in job search
while only 5 percent of recipients were enrolled in a high school
equivalency program.
More than 20 percent of tribal TANF recipients were engaged in
activities that are counted as work by tribes but which generally are
not approved work activities for state programs. While not all of the
activities tribes count as work lead directly to private sector
employment, they may have other benefits. Tribal officials believed
that individual TANF recipients as well as reservation communities as a
whole benefited when tribal TANF recipients were allowed to participate
in alternative work activities. For example, tribal TANF recipients who
participated in cultural activities helped to strengthen community ties
and preserve tribal traditions. Likewise, community service projects
can engage TANF recipients who have never held a regular job in a
meaningful activity that provides a valuable service to the community.
Some examples of tribal TANF work activities include: the delivery of
potable water to elderly tribal members on the Navajo reservation,
working at the local Head Start program on the Nez Perce reservation,
and participating in parenting and family strengthening courses in the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes on the Flathead reservation.
Tribes Use Flexibility to Set Work Participation Rate Requirements:
Tribes have used the flexibility in the law to set their own work
participation rate requirements and to determine the number of hours
recipients must work each week to meet those requirements, with HHS
approval. Whereas states had to ensure that 25 percent of all families
enrolled in TANF were engaged in federally counted work activities in
1997, increasing to 50 percent in fiscal year 2002, tribes could set
participation rate requirements that differed from those of states.
Most of the tribal TANF programs set their participation rate
requirements somewhat lower than those of states, generally ranging
from 15 to 30 percent over the first few years of the program. Four
tribal TANF programs adopted the same participation rate requirements
as states.
Unlike states, tribes are not eligible for caseload reduction credits”
reductions in the work participation rate they are required to meet when
their total TANF caseload drops. Tribes, however, must always meet the
participation rate requirements laid out in their TANF plans, no matter
how great the decline in tribal TANF caseloads. In fiscal year 2000, 7
of the 15 states with tribal TANF programs had effective work
participation rate requirements (after the caseload reduction credit
was applied) of zero, and 7 more had rates of 15 percent or less. Table
4 compares the participation rate requirements for fiscal year 2000 in
the seven tribal TANF programs in the four states that we visited.
Table 4: All Families Work Participation Rate Requirements for Selected
States and Tribes (FY 2000):
State work participation rate requirement: Tribal TANF work
participation rate requirement:
State:
Rate required by PRWORA Sec. 407(a):
Effective rate:
Tribe:
Actual rate:
State: Arizona;
State work participation rate requirement: Tribal TANF work
participation rate requirement: 40;
State work participation rate requirement: Effective rate: 0;
Tribe: Navajo Nation (Ariz., N. Mex., Utah);
Actual rate: [A].
State: Arizona;
State work participation rate requirement: Tribal TANF work
participation rate requirement: 40;
State work participation rate requirement: Effective rate: 0;
Tribe: White Mountain Apache Tribal Council (Ariz.)
Actual rate: 25[B].
State: Arizona;
State work participation rate requirement: Tribal TANF work
participation rate requirement: 40;
State work participation rate requirement: Effective rate: 0;
Tribe: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Council (Ariz.)
Actual rate: 20.
State: Idaho;
State work participation rate requirement: Tribal TANF work
participation rate requirement: 40;
State work participation rate requirement: Effective rate: 0;
Tribe: Coeur d‘Alene Tribal Council;
Actual rate: 15.
State: Idaho;
State work participation rate requirement: Tribal TANF work
participation rate requirement: 40;
State work participation rate requirement: Effective rate: 0;
Tribe: Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee;
Actual rate: 20.
State: Montana;
State work participation rate requirement: Tribal TANF work
participation rate requirement: 40;
State work participation rate requirement: Effective rate: 0;
Tribe: Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Tribal Council;
Actual rate: 15.
State: South Dakota;
State work participation rate requirement: Tribal TANF work
participation rate requirement: 40;
State work participation rate requirement: Effective rate: 3;
Tribe: Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribal council;
Actual rate: 25[B].
[A] The Navajo Nation TANF Program had not yet started in fiscal year
2000.
[B] Single parent family requirement. Tribal plan does not have an all
family requirement.
Source: HHS.
[End of table]
Tribes also have the flexibility to set the minimum number of hours each
week participants must be engaged in work activities. A majority of
tribal programs, 30 of the 36, require participants to work 20 or more
hours per week. This is similar to the state requirement, which began
at 20 hours per week in 1997 and increased to 30 hours per week by
2000.
Tribes Set Time Limits and Exemption Levels That Differ from Those of
States:
Tribal TANF programs have flexibility to set their own time limits,
subject to HHS approval. Many tribal TANF recipients living on
reservations are not subject to time limits, however, when the
unemployment rate on their reservation is greater than 50 percent.
Specifically, PRWORA exempts any month from counting toward an
individual‘s time limit if that individual is living on a reservation
with a population of at least 1,000 and an unemployment rate of 50
percent or greater, whether they are enrolled in a tribal or a state
TANF program. Of the 29 tribal TANF programs that serve a single tribe,
16 are located on reservations that had unemployment rates of 50
percent or greater, according to the most recent BIA data. [Footnote
24] To date, HHS has not approved any tribal TANF plans with a time
limit of greater than 60 months, although at least one tribe has
submitted a plan proposing a longer time limit. Thirty-four of the 36
tribal TANF programs have time limits of 60 months; 2 programs have 24-
month time limits. While a state may exempt no more than 20 percent of
its caseload from time limits due to hardship, tribal programs have the
flexibility to determine the share of the caseload they are allowed to
exempt from time limits due to hardship. A majority of tribal TANF
programs have the same exemption limit as states, but HHS has approved
10 plans with higher exemption rates. If tribes want to extend benefits
beyond the level approved in their plans, they must pay for the
benefits with their own funds. [Footnote 25]
Tribes Have Flexibility to Set Their Own Eligibility Requirements:
Tribal TANF programs also have the flexibility to determine many of
their own eligibility requirements. This includes the flexibility to
determine the geographic area their TANF program will cover (the
service area). Some tribes define their service area as their
reservation or land base, while others serve families residing in
nearby communities or within the counties that overlap with their
reservations (see fig. 8).
Figure 8: Tribal TANF Program Service Areas:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Program service area: Reservation only;
Number of tribes: 10.
Program service area: Surrounding county or counties;
Number of tribes: 21.
Program service area: BIA defined service area;
Number of tribes: 2.
Program service area: Alaskan Regional Corporation area;
Number of tribes: 3.
Source: HHS.
[End of figure]
Tribes also have the flexibility to determine whom they will serve (the
service population). Some tribes base eligibility on race or tribal
membership; others serve all families in their service areas. Figure 9
shows the populations tribal TANF programs have chosen to serve.
Figure 9: Tribal TANF Service Populations:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Service population: Serves only tribal members;
Number of tribes: 16.
Service population: Serves all Indian families;
Number of tribes: 16.
Service population: Serves all families;
Number of tribes: 4.
Source: HHS.
[End of figure]
Tribes Have the Same Flexibility as States to Determine Work Supports:
Like states, tribal TANF programs have the flexibility to use their TANF
grant to fund services they determine necessary to help recipients
comply with program requirements. Although they have the same range of
options available to states, tribal priorities and resources influence
decisions about what services tribes fund with their TANF grants. A
majority of tribes responding to our survey (18 of 24 programs) devoted
TANF funds to job training, work experience, and job search activities
as well as one or more educational programs. Most (21 of 24 programs)
also used TANF funds for child care or transportation.
In some instances, services were not funded with a tribal TANF program‘s
TANF grant because the services were available through other programs
or funding sources. Tribal NEW grants can cover some work-related
activities such as job search. In addition, tribes responding to our
survey question reported that services ranging from transportation and
child care to education, work preparation, health care and treatment
were funded through federal programs or state programs other than TANF,
grants to tribes and tribal revenues.
Tribes Face Challenges Implementing Their Programs:
Tribes have faced a number of challenges in implementing tribal TANF
programs. Many tribes have found that data on the number of American
Indians are inaccurate, complicating the determination of tribal TANF
grant amounts and making it difficult to design and plan programs.
Because tribes do not have the infrastructure they need to start their
programs, they have had to solicit contributions from a variety of
different sources to cover their significant start-up costs and ongoing
operating expenses. In addition, they lack the expertise needed to
administer key program features, including determining eligibility
because tribes do not have experience operating welfare programs. Some
tribes have requested and received technical assistance from states and
the federal government to help them develop this expertise.
The challenges tribes have to overcome in order to plan, develop, and
implement tribal TANF programs include, among others:
* Obtaining The Population Data Necessary To Conduct Reliable
Feasibility Studies And To Plan And Design Tribal TANF Programs.
HHS and tribal officials indicated that state data on American Indians
is inaccurate, complicating the determination of TANF grant amounts and
making it difficult to design and plan programs. The law specifies that
federal tribal TANF grants must be based on the funds expended on
American Indians who were residing in the program‘s designated service
area and receiving AFDC from the state in fiscal year 1994. In practice,
however, few states collected reliable data on the race of AFDC
recipients in 1994, so some tribes work with the state to negotiate a
mutually agreeable number on which their grant will be based, according
to tribal officials. [Footnote 26,27] Having accurate data on American
Indian caseloads is also critical for tribes as they design their
programs and make decisions about how to allocate their resources.
The information they use to estimate the 1994 caseload varies by tribe
and by state. In some instances, tribes provide the state with their
tribal enrollment list, and the state cross-matches the names with
their database of families receiving cash assistance in 1994 to come up
with a number on which their grant amount is based. In other instances,
states rely on other sources of data to estimate the number of American
Indians who received AFDC in 1994. Of the 26 tribal TANF programs that
responded to our survey, 17 reported that their tribal TANF grant was
based on the state‘s estimate of the number of American Indian families
in their service area on AFDC in 1994, but 9 tribes reported that they
negotiated a grant amount not based on this estimate, but instead based
on a number they negotiated with the state.
The degree to which any tribal TANF program‘s federal grant corresponds
to its current caseload varies substantially. Some officials attribute
this to underestimates of the number of American Indian families who
were receiving AFDC in 1994. Others believe that eligible families are
more likely to seek benefits from a tribal program, in part because of
increased outreach. Changes in the economy and population growth over
the past decade have also led to fluctuations in public assistance
caseloads on some reservations. The majority of tribes with TANF
programs responding to our survey question, 19 of 21, reported that the
number of families they were currently serving was the same as, or
smaller than, the number of families on which their grant was based.
However, 2 of the 21 tribes reported that their TANF caseload was
larger than the caseload on which their grant was based.
Because tribal TANF programs often provide TANF recipients with the
same monthly benefit as the states in which they are located, those
programs that serve more families than the number on which their grant
is based have fewer resources to fund the full range of TANF services.
The White Mountain Apache tribe spends some of its TANF grant on
transportation and child care, but none on educational, health, or job-
related services for their recipients. The Fort Belknap tribal TANF
program, for example, only funds four TANF services: GED training, work
experience, job search, and support services. In contrast, the majority
of programs responding to our survey (17 of 24 programs) reported that
they spend TANF funds on a range of education, job-related counseling,
and transportation or child care services.
* Securing or leveraging the resources needed to establish the
infrastructure needed to administer tribal TANF. Because most tribes
starting tribal TANF programs do not have the infrastructure they need
in place, they have secured and leveraged funding from a variety of
sources to meet the basic ’start-up“ costs involved in setting up a new
program. These start-up costs include those for basic infrastructure
such as information technology systems. In addition, tribal TANF
programs are not eligible to receive any of the performance incentives
currently available to states.
One infrastructure need that tribes have found particularly difficult to
meet is the development of new information systems. Like states, tribal
TANF programs are permitted to spend as much of their federal TANF
grant on management information systems as they choose, and some tribes
have developed systems for their new TANF programs. Unlike states,
tribes did not receive additional federal funds expressly for the
purpose of developing and operating automated information systems under
AFDC, the precursor to the TANF program. [Footnote 28] Although most of
the tribal TANF programs reported using an automated system to report
TANF data, many”8 of 27”do not. For example, the Fort Belknap tribal
TANF program in Montana has a caseload of 175 families, yet it does not
have an automated information system for the collection, processing,
and reporting of TANF data. Eleven tribes reported having an automated
system devoted to their TANF program. Others use the state‘s computer
system or contract with the state to collect, store, or process data for
federal reporting purposes.
Some tribes have leveraged funds from other federal programs or relied
on other sources, including state TANF funds and tribal government
contributions, because most tribal TANF funds are used to provide
benefits to TANF recipients. For example, the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai tribal TANF program received a Community Technology Centers
grant from the U.S. Department of Education to fund the ongoing
operating costs of its ’Cool Bus,“ a mobile computer training center.
The bus locates in neighborhoods around the reservation on a rotating
basis to provide computer access and computer training programs to TANF
recipients and other tribal members.
Figure 10: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe‘s Mobile Computer
Training Center:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a photograph of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribe‘s Mobile Computer Training Center.
[End of figure]
States recognize that it is in their best interest if tribal TANF
programs succeed and, therefore, most provide at least some of their
state MOE funds to tribal programs in their state. HHS reports that 29
of 36 tribal TANF programs receive MOE funds from the states. Some
states provide tribes with a share of MOE proportionate to the
population they are serving; others provide some start-up costs, and
others have not provided any funds. While the law does not require
states to contribute MOE, some state officials we visited indicated
that they believed that it was in their best interest to provide MOE to
tribes in order for the programs to succeed so that tribes would never
have to retrocede their programs back to the state. Any contributions
made by states to tribal TANF programs do count toward a state‘s MOE
requirement.
Most tribal TANF programs that responded to our survey question, 24 of
27, reported that their tribal government made contributions to their
TANF program. Eighteen of these respondents reported that their tribes
contributed office space or buildings. In addition, 15 programs received
contributions from the tribal governments to cover other start-up
costs.
For example, the Navajo tribal TANF program received $500,000 from its
tribal government to help cover start-up costs.
Figure 11: Facilities Used for Tribal TANF Programs:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a series of photographs depicting the following:
* Hopi Guidance Center;
* Coeur d'Alene Social Service office;
* Navajo TANF office, Chinle, Arizona.
[End of figure]
In addition to securing resources from federal, state, and tribal
governments, some tribes have leveraged other funds to enable them to
administer tribal TANF with limited resources. One way tribes have been
able to do this is by combining TANF and other tribally administered
federal employment and training programs into a single program with a
single budget through a consolidated plan, as authorized by the Indian
Employment, Training, and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992.
[Footnote 29] Tribes with consolidated plans are able to save on
administrative costs and reduce duplication of services by streamlining
the administration of related programs. For example, a tribe with a
consolidated plan could provide job search and job preparation services
to all tribal members through a single program, rather than having a
separate program for TANF recipients. To date, 13 tribal TANF programs
responding to our survey question have included TANF in their
consolidated plans. Two of the tribes we visited, the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai tribe and the Sisseton-Wahpeton tribe, included
their tribal TANF programs in consolidated plans, and both tribes
indicated that the ability to combine funding sources and streamline
service delivery was instrumental in allowing them to administer tribal
TANF within their budget constraints.
* Developing the expertise to better implement tribal TANF programs.
Tribal TANF program administrators have had to quickly develop the
expertise to plan and operate tribal TANF programs because they do not
have experience in administering welfare programs. Tribal TANF
administrators have had to train staff on eligibility determination,
data reporting requirements, and administration. They have also had to
set up information systems, conduct feasibility studies, and leverage
resources to help cover their costs.
Most of the tribes that responded to our survey reported that states
provided them with at least some technical assistance in these areas,
but the amount of assistance provided by states varied. PRWORA does not
require states to provide technical assistance to tribes, but 19 tribes
reported that the state helped them to a great or very great extent in
developing their initial concept paper describing their TANF program. In
addition, 26 tribal TANF programs reported that they had received
technical assistance and support from the state in developing or
operating automated systems to collect and report TANF program data. A
number of programs reported that they received assistance from the
state on other aspects of administering a TANF program. Tribes also
reported that HHS has provided them with technical assistance when
asked.
Finally, tribal officials indicated that certain types of assistance
were not readily available to them from states or the federal
government. For example, tribes have recognized their need to conduct
studies to determine whether it is feasible for them to administer
their own programs. However, neither states nor the federal government
have provided tribes with technical assistance on how to conduct a
feasibility study that would provide them with all of the information
about whether or not they have the resources, infrastructure, and other
supports necessary to effectively administer their own programs.
Similarly, while tribes have established informal networks to exchange
information about strategies they are employing to help move recipients
into productive work activities, some of the tribes we visited
indicated that such information is not systematically compiled and is,
therefore, difficult to locate when they need it. As a result, tribes
do not have all of the information they could use to develop a
successful program that responds to the economic constraints that exist
on reservations.
Conclusions:
PRWORA gives tribes a new opportunity to exercise their sovereignty by
administering their own TANF programs. At this early stage of tribal
TANF implementation, we see tribes making progress in exercising their
flexibility by tailoring the design of their programs and engaging their
members in a broad array of work activities. However, tribes face
challenges in developing the data, systems, and expertise they need to
operate their programs.
While tribes have moved forward in establishing their own programs, it
is not yet known whether these programs will help recipients find
employment before reaching time limits. In addition, it is not yet clear
whether the flexibility afforded to tribal TANF programs will allow them
to continue to provide benefits and services to those who reach the time
limit without obtaining a job. States and the federal government have
provided tribes with many types of assistance to enable them to develop
programs tailored to their communities, but tribes have not received the
assistance they need to conduct feasibility studies that will allow
them to make informed decisions about administering tribal TANF
programs, nor do they have easy access to information about strategies
other tribes have employed to move recipients into productive work
activities given the economic conditions on reservations.
Whether tribal TANF programs will be successful in moving more
American Indians from welfare into the workforce will ultimately depend
on not only the ability of the programs to meet their recipients‘ need
for income support, education, and training, but also the success of
economic development efforts in providing employment opportunities for
American Indians.
Recommendations:
We recommend that HHS provide assistance to tribes to better enable
them to determine the feasibility of implementing their own TANF
programs and to ensure that they have access to information about
strategies other tribal TANF programs have used to help move recipients
into productive work activities so that they can develop better programs
that respond to economic conditions on reservations.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to HHS for its review. A copy of HHS‘
response is in appendix IV. HHS generally agreed with our findings and
our recommendation.
With regard to our recommendation that HHS assist tribes in determining
the feasibility of administering their own TANF programs, the agency
noted that it already assists tribes interested in administering tribal
TANF by providing them with approved tribal TANF plans to use as
examples and by providing them with comments and assistance in
developing their plans. This assistance is helpful to tribes that have
made the decision to administer tribal TANF and are in the process of
designing their programs. However, we believe more could be done to
assist those tribes that have not yet decided whether to administer
tribal TANF in determining the feasibility of administering the
program. Concerning our recommendation that HHS ensure that tribes have
access to information about strategies used by other tribes, HHS noted
that it plans to share information on innovative strategies used by
tribes and to work with tribes to ensure that its technical assistance
efforts are effective. In addition, HHS stated that it plans to provide
additional assistance to tribes in the areas of strategic planning,
information systems, financial management, performance goals and
tracking, and staff development. We agree that additional assistance in
these areas will help tribes to develop programs that best meet the
needs of their recipients.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of HHS, appropriate congressional committees, and
other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others
on request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me or
Clarita Mrena on (202) 512-3022 or at mrenac@gao.gov. Other staff who
made significant contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We conducted three mail surveys for this study. We sent the first
survey to the tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
directors of the 36 federally approved tribal TANF programs, including
3 administered by Alaska Native regional nonprofit corporations. We
sent the second to the tribal chairmen or presidents of the remaining
334 federally recognized tribes. [Footnote 30]
We asked both groups to provide information on tribal enrollment,
poverty among tribal members on the reservations, and employment
information among adults living on the reservations, economic
development initiatives, commercial enterprises owned by the tribe,
unemployment rates, and the types of TANF services received by tribal
members enrolled in the program. In addition, we asked tribal program
administrators about their experiences in administering a tribal TANF
program.
We sent a third mail survey to the state TANF directors of the 34 states
that have at least one federally recognized Indian tribe. We asked them
to provide information about American Indians who received TANF through
their state programs and the tribal TANF programs in their states.
The questionnaires used for each of the surveys were each pretested at
least twice. Table 5 provides survey numbers and response rates for all
the surveys.
Table 5: Survey Numbers and Response Rates:
Survey of: Tribal TANF programs[A];
Number of surveys mailed: 36;
Number of survey responses received: 28;
Response rate (percent): 78.
Survey of: Tribes[B];
Number of surveys mailed: 334;
Number of survey responses received: 124;
Response rate (percent): 37.
Survey of: States;
Number of surveys mailed: 34;
Number of survey responses received: 34;
Response rate (percent): 100.
[A] This includes 7 consortiums that administer the tribal TANF program
for 145 tribes, as of January 1,2002. Five of the seven consortiums
responded to our survey.
[B] This excludes the consortiums that administer tribal TANF programs.
[End of table]
Many of the questions included in the questionnaires sent to tribal TANF
programs and to other tribes were identical, so we were able to combine
the responses from the two surveys into a single database. This database
includes responses from tribes that have tribal TANF programs as well as
tribes that do not have tribal TANF programs. The database, which is
used primarily to report findings on the economic conditions on
reservations, does not include responses from tribal TANF programs
operated by consortia because tribal TANF consortia were not asked to
provide information about economic conditions on the reservations of
each of their members. Of the 370 individual tribes that were sent
surveys, 147 responded to the survey, for a response rate of 40
percent.
Not all respondents to the survey answered every question because not
all questions applied to every respondent, and some respondents chose
not to answer one or more of the questions that did apply to them. As a
result, individual survey questions often had fewer answers than the
total number of respondents to the survey.
Site Visits:
We also visited state TANF programs in Arizona, Idaho, Montana, North
Dakota, and South Dakota; seven tribes that had implemented or were
beginning to implement tribal TANF programs; and five that have decided
not to implement tribal TANF programs across these five states. We
selected states or tribes to visit based on a variety of factors, such
as the number of American Indians receiving TANF, whether TANF was
provided through a state program or a tribal TANF program, whether
tribes were administering their own programs or not, the length of time
tribes had been operating their own TANF programs, and geographic
location. We discussed TANF issues with tribal leaders and tribal
social service officials as well as state TANF officials in each of the
five states.
Last, we reviewed the literature concerning the impact of welfare reform
on American Indians and discussed this subject with federal officials at
HHS‘ Administration for Children and Families and the Department of the
Interior‘s Bureau of Indian Affairs, representatives of the National
Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the Indian and Native American
Employment and Training Coalition, academic experts from the Kathryn
M. Buder Center for American Indian Studies at Washington University in
St. Louis and the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the
University of Arizona. In addition, we attended two tribal TANF
conferences organized by NCAI and a meeting of the Southwest Tribal TANF
Consortia, which is composed of Arizona tribes, and met with
representatives of the Montana Tribal Welfare Reform Consortia.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Tribal TANF Programs:
State: Alaska;
Programs:
* Association of Village Council Presidents;
* Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska;
* Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.
State: Arizona;
Programs:
* Pascua Yaqui Tribal Council;
* Navajo Nation (also in New Mexico and Utah);
* White Mountain Apache Tribal Council;
* Hopi Tribal Council;
* Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Council.
State: California;
Programs:
* Owens Valley Career Development Center;
* Southern California Tribal Chairmen‘s Association;
* Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.
State: Idaho;
Programs:
* Coeur d‘Alene Tribal Council;
* Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee;
* Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation.
State: Minnesota;
Programs:
* Mille Lacs Reservation Business Committee.
State: Montana;
Programs:
* Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Tribal Council;
* Fort Belknap Community Council.
State: Nebraska;
Programs:
* Winnebago Tribal Council.
State: New Mexico;
Programs:
* Pueblo of Zuni.
State: Oklahoma
Programs:
* Osage Tribal Council.
State: Oregon;
Programs:
* Klamath General Council;
* Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians.
State: South Dakota;
Programs:
* Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribal Council.
State: Washington;
* Lower Elwha Tribal Council;
* Quinault Indian Nation - Business Committee;
* Colville Business Council;
* Port Gamble S‘Klallam Tribe;
* Quileute Tribal Council.
State: Wisconsin;
Programs:
* Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians;
* Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin;
* Stockbridge Munsee Community of Wisconsin;
* Sokaogon Chippewa (Mole Lake) Community of Wisconsin;
* Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin;
* Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin.
State: Wyoming:
Programs:
* Northern Araphaho Tribe (Wind River);
* Shoshone Business Committee.
[End of table]
Figure 12: Map of Federally Recognized American Indian Tribes, Alaska
Nonprofit Corporations, and Tribal TANF Programs:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States with the location of the
following areas and programs indicated:
* Federally Recognized American Indian Tribe or Regional Nonprofit
Corporation (AK);
* Tribal TANF program;
* American Indian Reservation.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Tribal TANF Work Activities:
Table 6:Activities That Count Toward Meeting Work Participation Rate
Requirements As Defined by Tribal TANF Programs:
State: Alaska;
Tribe: Association of Village Council Presidents;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Check];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Alaska;
Tribe: Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska'
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Alaska;
Tribe: Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Check];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Arizona;
Tribe: Pascua Yaqui Tribal Council;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Arizona;
Tribe: Navajo Nation;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Check]
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Arizona;
Tribe: White Mountain Apache Tribal Council
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Arizona;
Tribe: Hopi Tribal Council
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Arizona;
Tribe: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Council
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: California;
Tribe: Owens Valley Career Development Center;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Check];
Life Skills/parenting: [Check];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Check];
NEW[A] participation: [Check];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: California;
Tribe: Southern California Tribal Chairmen's Association;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Check];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: California;
Tribe: Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Check];
Life Skills/parenting: [Check];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Check];
NEW[A] participation: [Check];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Idaho;
Tribe: Coeur d'Alene Tribal Council;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Check];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Idaho;
Tribe: Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Check];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Check];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Check];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Idaho;
Tribe: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Check];
Subsistence activities: [Check];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Minnesota;
Tribe: Mille Lacs Reservation Business Committee;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Check];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Montana;
Tribe: Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Tribal Council;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Check];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Check];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Montana;
Tribe: Fort Belknap Community Council;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Nebraska;
Tribe: Winnebago Tribal Council;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Check];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
Tribe: Pueblo of Zuni;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Check];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
Tribe: Osage Tribal Council;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Oregon;
Tribe: Klamath General Council;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Oregon;
Tribe: Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: South Dakota;
Tribe: Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribal Council;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Washington;
Tribe: Lower Elwha Tribal Council;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Check];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Check];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Washington;
Tribe: Quinault Indian Nation - Business Committee;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Check];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Check];
Post-secondary: [Check];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Washington;
Tribe: Colville Business Council;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Washington;
Tribe: Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Check];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Check];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Washington;
Tribe: Quileute Tribal Council;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Check];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty.
State: Wisconsin;
Tribe: Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Check];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Wisconsin;
Tribe: Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
State: Wisconsin;
Tribe: Stockbridge Munsee Community of Wisconsin;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Wisconsin;
Tribe: Sokaogon Chippewa (Mole Lake) Community of Wisconsin;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Wisconsin;
Tribe: Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of
Wisconsin;
Cultural activities: [Check];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Wisconsin;
Tribe: Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Wyoming;
Tribe: Northern Araphaho Tribe (Wind River);
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Empty];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Check].
State: Wyoming;
Tribe: Shoshone Business Committee;
Cultural activities: [Empty];
Counseling/treatment: [Empty];
Self-employment: [Empty];
Life Skills/parenting: [Check];
Subsistence activities: [Empty];
Post-secondary: [Empty];
NEW[A] participation: [Empty];
Commuting time: [Empty];
Same as PRWORA: [Empty].
[A] Participation in a tribal Native Employment Works (NEW) program, a
tribally administered work activities program.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Administration For Children And Families:
Office of the Assistant Secretary, Suite 600:
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20447:
June 24, 2002:
To: Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
From: [Signed by Chris Genter] for: Wade F. Horn, Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families:
Subject: Comments on the GAO Draft Report: "Welfare Reform: Tribal TANF
Allows Flexibility to Tailor Programs, but Conditions on Reservations
Make it Difficult to Move Recipients into Jobs." (GAO-02-768):
Attached are the Administration for Children and Families' comments on
the GAO Draft Report: "Welfare Reform: Tribal TANF Allows Flexibility
to Tailor Programs, but Conditions on Reservations Make it Difficult to
Move Recipients into Jobs." (GAO-02-768).
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact
Clarence H. Carter, Director, Office of Community Services at (202) 401-
9333.
Attachment:
Comments Of The Administration For Children And Families On The General
Accounting Office's Draft Report, "Welfare Reform: Tribal TANF Allows
Flexibility To Tailor Programs, But Conditions On Reservations Make It
Difficult To Move Recipients Into Jobs" (GAO-02-768):
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on this draft report, which provides useful
information about the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Program in Indian Country.
General Comments:
As reflected in your report, Congress included provisions in the 1996
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act that
give tribes the opportunity to administer TANF programs in the same
manner as states, rather than receiving benefits and services from
state TANF programs. Tribes can administer these programs on
reservations, in designated "near reservation" areas, and with
concurrence from the affected state, in external areas. They have the
option of administering these programs either alone or as part of a
consortium.
In recognition of the difficult economic conditions, geographic
situations, lack of jobs, and lack of education and work preparedness,
and other unique factors contributing to extremely high unemployment
and poverty, the law and the implementing regulations promulgated by
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) allow more
flexibility to tribes in designing their programs to meet TANF
requirements and achieve the goals of welfare reform.
Within HHS, the ACF has been working with tribes to assist them in
designing their TANF plans in such a way as to reflect each tribe's
unique situation and meet their service population's needs. In
addition, tribes are strongly encouraged to work with state and local
governments, strengthening, or in some cases developing, a working
relationship based on collaboration, communication and cooperation.
GAO Recommendation:
That HHS provide assistance to tribes to better enable them to
determine the feasibility of implementing their own TANF programs and
to ensure that they have access to information about strategies other
tribal TANF programs have used to help move recipients into productive
work activities so they can develop better programs that respond to
economic conditions on reservations.
ACF Comment:
We agree that providing information to tribes to determine the
feasibility of implementing their own TANF programs and to ensure that
they have access to information about strategies utilized by other
tribal TANF programs to help move recipients into productive work
activities is important.
When a tribe expresses an interest in developing a TANF plan and
administering a TANF program, we provide them with copies of approved
plans for their perusal. We also encourage tribes to contact existing
tribal TANF programs. In addition, as the plan is developed, we work
with the tribe offering comments and advise on the elements of the plan
and strategies for implementation.
Recognizing the need for additional training and technical assistance,
HHS will work with tribes on issues such as strategic planning,
information systems, financial management, performance goals and
tracking, and staff development. In addition, we will share information
on innovative and creative strategies that could make programs more
successful in meeting the tribes' needs. Finally, we will work with the
tribes to determine how to make federally sponsored technical
assistance activities most effective for the tribes.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Clarita A. Mrena, (202) 512-3022:
Kathryn A. Larin, (202) 512-5045:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Carolyn S. Blocker, Mark E. McArdle,
Robert D. Sampson, Joel I. Grossman, Catherine M. Hurley, and Corinna
Nicolaou made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] In this report, the term American Indians refers to both American
Indians and Alaska Natives.
[2] In this report, the term ’reservation“ refers to all types of
tribally owned land.
[3] We also sent surveys sent to the presidents of Alaska Native
regional nonprofit corporations. PRWORA limits the entities in the
state of Alaska that may operate a TANF program. The Metlakatla Indian
Community of the Annette Islands Reserve and the 12 Alaska Native
regional nonprofits are the only eligible entities.
[4] It should be noted that not all respondents to the survey answered
every survey question because not all questions applied to every
respondent, and some respondents chose not to answer one or more of the
questions that did apply to them. As a result, there were often fewer
answers to individual survey questions than the total number of
respondents to the survey.
[5] PRWORA exempts any month from counting toward an individual‘s time
limit if that individual is living on a reservation with a population
of at least 1,000 and an unemployment rate of 50 percent or greater,
whether they are enrolled in a tribal or state TANF program. Most
states use the biennial statistics maintained by BIA.
[6] Approved activities include: unsubsidized employment, subsidized
private or public sector employment, work experience, on-the-job
training, job search and job readiness assistance, community service
programs, vocational educational training, job skills training directly
related to employment, education directly related to employment,
satisfactory attendance at a secondary school or a course of study
leading to a certificate of general equivalence, or the provision of
child care services to an individual who is participating in a community
service program.
[7] To receive a TANF block grant, each state must meet a MOE
requirement, under which it must spend at least a specified amount of
its own funds. Under AFDC, state funds accounted for 45 percent of
total federal and state expenditures. Under PRWORA, the law requires
states to sustain 75 to 80 percent of their fiscal year 1994 level of
spending on welfare through the MOE requirement.
[8] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Economic Development: Federal
Assistance Programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives, GAO-02-193
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 21, 2001) for information on federal economic
development programs for tribes and tribal members.
[9] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Indian Issues: Improvements
Needed in Tribal Recognition Process, GAO-02-49 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
2, 2001).
[10] National Indian Gaming Association data.
[11] In 2001, the federal poverty guideline in the contiguous 48 states
was $14,630 for a family of three.
[12] Census data show that the poverty rate for American Indians did
not significantly change from 1998 to 2000, whereas the poverty rate
for other racial groups significantly decreased. The Current Population
Survey regularly collects national data on demographics, labor force,
and income from a representative national sample, including Indians.
Although the sample of American Indians is too small to allow the data
to be projected to the entire Indian population, reliable estimates of
some measures can be obtained by averaging data over 3 years. People
who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are
considered unemployed. See also Poverty in the United States: 2000,
Current Population Reports, Consumer Income (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Census Bureau), Sept. 2001. Data taken from the years 1999-2000 and
1998-1999.
[13] Different methods can produce widely different rates, depending on
how they define ’unemployed.“ CPS uses the number of people actively
searching for employment, not just those who are unemployed. BIA
calculates the number of unemployed Indians for each reservation by
subtracting the number of adults employed from the tribe‘s service
population who were available for work.
[14] BIA asks tribes to provide estimates on their enrolled members and
members from other tribes who lived on or near their reservations and
who were eligible to use the tribe‘s BIA-funded services (termed
’service population“). Because tribes may not follow the same
methodology when collecting and reporting the data, the quality of the
data among tribes could vary.
[15] Eddie F. Brown, D.S.W., Stephen Cornell, Ph.D., et al., Welfare,
Work, and American Indians: The Impact of Welfare Reform: A Report to
the National Congress of American Indians (Nov. 27, 2001).
[16] Culturally appropriate decision-making processes reflects a
cultural match between governing institutions and the prevailing ideas
in the community about how authority should be organized and exercised.
For example, although having a centralized system of government with a
strong executive branch works well for Apache tribes, which have a
tradition of electing their leaders, this form of government may not
hold the same legitimacy among members of tribes that traditionally had
more decentralized governments.
[17] HHS did not report American Indian caseload data for 1994 for
states without a federally recognized tribe.
[18] In Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, South Carolina, and Texas, the
share of the TANF caseload made up of American Indians increased by
less than 1 percent between 1994 and 2001. Insufficient data were
provided to calculate the change in proportion for three states:
Alabama, Florida, and Indiana.
[19] It should be recognized that the race of TANF recipients recorded
on their applications may not always be accurate. TANF applicants are
not required to disclose their race, and often the caseworker judges
the race of the recipient for reporting purposes, which may lead to
misidentification. Furthermore, according to an HHS official, until
recently, at least one state‘s TANF application only listed categories
for whites, blacks, and Hispanics.
[20] Brown, Eddie F. et al., Welfare, Work, and American Indians: the
Impact of Welfare Reform, Nov. 27, 2001.
[21] Hillabrant, Walter et al., The Evaluation of the Tribal Welfare-to-
Work Grants Program: Initial Implementation Findings, Mar. 2002.
[22] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Moving Hard to
Employ Recipients Into the Workforce, GAO-01-368 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 15, 2001).
[23] This approach is often referred to as ’work first.“
[24] Our analysis does not include tribal coalitions that serve
residents of more than one reservation. Of the remaining 13 tribal
programs that serve residents of one or two reservations, 6 have
unemployment rates of 40 to 49 percent and 6 have unemployment rates of
20 to 39 percent.
[25] States may use their MOE funds to extend benefits to recipients
who reach their time limits but do not fall within the 20-percent
exemption. Tribes do not have a MOE requirement and, therefore, do not
have the same access to funding for this extension.
[26] This lack of data on American Indian caseloads makes it difficult
for states and tribes to determine tribal TANF grant amounts, but it
also hinders a tribe‘s ability to plan and design its programs. The
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla tribe of Los Angeles, for example, based
its tribal TANF plan on American Indian TANF recipient estimates that
turned out to be inaccurate.
[27] If the state and tribe cannot agree on the 1994 caseload numbers
submitted by the state, the Secretary of HHS, or designee, is required
to make a decision on the tribal TANF grant amount.
[28] Between 1980 and 1992, the federal government reimbursed states
for 50 to 90 percent of the costs incurred in planning, designing,
developing, installing, and operating automated welfare systems. From
1994 to 1997, states could be reimbursed for 50 percent of their
automated systems costs. We reported that between 1984 and 1992, the
federal government spent more than $500 million annually on state
automated AFDC systems. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare
Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated Federal
Effort, GAO/HEHS–00–48 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2000) and U.S. General
Accounting Office, Automated Welfare Systems: Historical Costs and
Projections, GAO/AIMD–94–52FS (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 1994).
[29] The 1992 act (P.L. 102-477) allows federally recognized tribes and
Alaska Native entities to combine federal grant funds for employment
training, or any related area, into a 477 plan, with a single budget
and a single reporting system.
[30] We mailed this survey to the Alaska Native regional nonprofit
corporations and the Metlakatla Indian Community of the Annette Islands
Reserve that are eligible to administer their own TANF program but do
not. We excluded other federally recognized Alaska Native entities from
this survey that are not eligible to administer a tribal TANF program.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
