BBNA Federal Funding Task Force Position Paper
Beyond Compacting: Consolidation
of Funding for Alaska Tribes

June 18, 2003

For several years, Senator Stevens has expressed concerns over the way federal funding for BIA services, health care, housing and other governmental programs has been allocated and administered in Alaska. At the 2002 AFN convention, the Senator again addressed this issue, stressing the fact that the federal budget was shrinking due to the Homeland Security Act and the potential for war with Iraq. He also stated that Congress had to find a better way to secure and allocate federal funds to assist Alaska Natives, as he would not be working forever.

Senator Stevens’ remarks to the 2002 convention were delivered in the context of reported efforts by the Alaska Legislature and certain advocates suggesting that the 1993 designation of 226 (now 229) Alaska Native tribes having a “government to government” relationship with the United States was improper and should be reconsidered. Uncertainty about the Bush administration’s response to these requests and the then imminent change in political administration in Juneau perhaps fueled concerns that Senator Stevens’s problems with the allocation, funding and efficiency of services were part of a broad policy shift to reconsider the status of Alaska's 229 tribes.

In an attempt to assist Senator Stevens, the BBNA Board appointed a Federal Funding Task Force to address the issue. It is the intention of this brief to present a recommendation to the BBNA Board. The issues raised by Senator Stevens centered on “maximizing efficiency [through] a more regionally focused effort.” The Senator’s funding concerns are primarily with:

• Administrative costs (or the duplication of administrative functions)
• Eligibility for BIA services
• Efficiency, compliance and accountability
• Inequitable distribution of competitive grants; and,
• Small or relocated tribes.

It is the tribes’ highest concern to maintain appropriation designation as “tribal” without losing the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the federal government. Similarly, the preservation of sovereignty and the ability to retain tribal autonomy and self-determination in the funding process is paramount. Several principles encapsulate this thought:

1) The new system must preserve inherent tribal sovereignty, and the government-to
government relationship between tribes and the federal government. It must also be
responsive to the Senator’s concerns while including the retention and preservation of
small or relocated tribes in Alaska in the new funding formula.

2) The Federal trust responsibility must not be diminished by the new system, rather, it
should be strengthened and improved.

3) The new system should not, by its effect, further alienate or negatively distinguish Alaska tribes from those of the lower forty-eight tribes. Nor should there be any confusion between tribal entities that are member and community-based and those comprised of shareholders in a for-profit corporation.

4) “Consolidation” of funding rather than “regionalization.” Funding secured at the federal
level can be consolidated and then allocated via a federally predetermined tribal base
funding amount.

Consolidation
The concept of “Regionalization” is based upon a premise that there exists administrative duplication between the point of congressional appropriation and when funding is actually applied to provide services to tribal members. Tribally based funding would allow for continued tribal autonomy and self-determination without creating a “forced regionalization” that could potentially remove a tribe’s ability to best determine how monies will be spent. Funneling monies through a regional consortia of federally recognized tribes would consolidate native funding through a model wherein a forum run by Alaska tribal consortia would provide an efficient conduit for the allocation of funds.

A principle here is the maximization of funding through the elimination of administrative duplication and by including agency amounts appropriated but heretofore not reaching Alaska. This would streamline the funding process by identifying those budget areas that could effectively bypass BIA offices in Albuquerque, Juneau and Anchorage. By utilizing a now-existing mechanism, wherein block granting could consolidate monies to tribes, a flexible plan would allow regional tribes to decide how to best serve their members with those dollars. The key to this concept is a guaranteed baseline funding that tribes can rely upon.

This process could also effectively eliminate Anchorage and Region X offices for programs such as EPA, Head Start, tribal roads, etc. It would also effectively eliminate the federal bureaucracy that confronts the appropriation process, which currently is situated between the tribes and the congress. For example, you could combine the best aspects of tribal compacting and the Denali Commission model and improve upon the practical application of each. This type of federal funding funneled through a regional consortia of federally recognized tribes would allow tribes to decide how to spend their dollars based upon need and their proposed budget and abilities while ensuring accountability through the organization. It would also address Senator Stevens’ five main funding concerns previously mentioned. Similarly, such a formula may be useful in compensating tribal entities providing services for other tribal members under BIA programs that heretofore have not been funded; and would continue to allow for portability of those services.

Block Grants
Making broad block grant-type funding available would reduce administrative redundancy and burden for tribes while allowing maximum flexibility in their application. There would be a formulation wherein tribes would receive a tribal share based upon several factors. Funding to the region either in the form of tribal shares and/or a block grant-type formula would be based upon that region’s population of federally recognized tribal members, cost of living index, cost of services, unemployment rates. The purpose of this idea is to make dollars available to councils via block grants that would enable tribes to have broad flexibility while requiring less reporting and administrative burden.

To illustrate consolidated funding and block granting: the Bristol Bay Native Association’s Social Services department receives $3.3 million dollars from twenty-six separate sources requiring grant and contract applications written on an annual basis exceeding 650 pages. Further, one hundred and four quarterly reports, annual financial reports and year-end narratives are required. Besides the evident administrative burden, oftentimes the same client receives multiple services requiring duplicative case plans, eligibility and compliance difficulties—this is administrative inefficiency that compacting was designed to eliminate. Block grants to tribes would be in a small number of broad categories as noted above.

Planning, Management and Accountability
The proposed course of action would make the appropriations process easier for Senator Stevens and ensure that the allocation and prioritization of needs could be at the lowest possible level. A block-granting program would enable Senator Stevens to lock-in funding sources for Alaska tribes that would continue once he has left office. Regional tribal groups would perform the planning, advocacy, reporting and accountability functions while bypassing agency administration. This prioritization would be regionally structured and responsible by and to the tribes or BIA compacting organization. This could ensure local control by providing equitable formulae for all. One concern exists that requires mentioning: the importance of funding remaining tribal and that tribal membership is a birthright and not dependant on individual possession of a share of stock from a regional native for-profit corporation. Alaska tribal funding is a function of sovereignty and not profit.

It is important to remember that this concept would allow those tribes that wish to remain in a compact environment to remain there with only funding amounts changed (increased). However, by participating in the proposed system, those tribes that are currently contracting individually would be able to have more dollars available and the potential to exercise more self-determination because the program monies would be coming into the region and the allocation process would be determined regionally and not at the federal-competitive basis. With the addition of further resources available, it would provide the opportunity to bring more monies into the region for those tribes that wish to take on more programs or expand their current programs.

This proposal may require the restructuring of how some tribal consortia respond to tribal concerns and would be up to each consolidated tribal consortia to formalize those changes and what services would be provided. This brief is submitted for your information and to encourage a unified consolidated approach that would be a very plausible result for Senator Steven’s consideration. Thank you.