General National Consultation Summary Session
June 14, 2001
Washington, D.C.
A Tribal Self-Governance Feasibility Study national consultation was held on June 14, 2001 in Washington, D.C. Approximately 65 representatives attended the consultation session which was jointly hosted by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Tribal Self- Governance Advisory Committee (TSGAC).
Opening Remarks
Dr. Delores Parron, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (and also Co-Chair of the Title VI Self-Governance Feasibility Study Team) welcomed the group and noted that one of the best parts of this effort and collaboration has been the sharing of ideas and different cultures. She introduced W. Ron Allen, Chairman of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Department of Interior TSGAC Chairman, and one of the Tribal Co-Chairs of the Title VI Team. She noted that this is the fifth consultation session with Tribes that has been conducted over the past 3 months. Additionally, a meeting was held with state and local representatives and another meeting with non-governmental organizations.
She noted that Title VI of P.L. 106-260 provides for a study on the feasibility of Tribal Self- Governance for additional programs of DHHS. This study is being guided by a consultation protocol that was jointly developed with the Tribes. All decisions related to this study have involved the active participation of Tribal representatives.
Co-Chair W. Ron Allen provided some historical background regarding Self-Governance within the Department of Interior and Indian Health Service. He stated that this movement involves the empowerment of Tribal governments and Tribes’ ability to assume programs and redesign them to be more effectively utilize them in their respective Tribal community. The Title VI is an extension of this initiative to expand Tribal options and programs under Self-Governance. He mentioned that this effort will result in a final report to Congress to recommend the feasibility of a demonstration and pilot projects for some of the DHHS programs. He noted that this report should provide information to address any concerns and issues. In closing, Chairman Allen thanked the DHHS representatives for engaging and working in partnership with the Tribes on this effort.
Dr. Parron mentioned that these are open sessions and encouraged Tribal input. She noted that there are no hidden agendas and urged the representatives to review the materials and summaries from previous sessions. She also referenced the summary of all programs of the DHHS and FY2001 budget amounts that has been included in the meeting packages.
Feasibility Discussion
Mike, Herrell, DHHS, Office of Planning and Evaluation began the discussion by outlining the requirements of the study-- including providing a list of programs that could be included in a demonstration project, any legal or legislative barriers to the inclusion of those programs, design elements for a demonstration, and impact assessments (costs, potential savings and impact on beneficiaries). The final report is to be submitted by February 2002.
He noted that the role of the Office of Planning and Evaluation is to facilitate the process. Final recommendations will be made by the DHHS Secretary. However, draft reports will be shared with all interested parties and stakeholders. The final report will also be shared and a separate minority report could also be filed by stakeholders who may disagree with some of the final recommendations.
Comments
Ann Mendoza, Department of Defense, noted that Tribes may be eligible to access existing federal procurement mechanisms.
Nancy Harley requested whether there is a list of state contacts and various organizations that tribes can obtain for additional information. Mike Herrell responded that they will develop a list with the various state agencies that could be shared with Tribes.
A list of the those representatives of who attended the state and non-governmental organization consultation meetings was also requested. Mike Herrell responded that this list would be available on the Title VI website.
Preliminary Recommendations to DHHS to Date
Mr. Herrell then provided a brief overview of the recommendations received from the previous sessions (see attached copies of overhead slides) and requested additional comments and views. These recommendations addressed the following components:
· Tribal Eligibility -- No additional comments or recommendations were raised regarding eligibility.
· Design Features (the important underpinning of any demonstration is the government-to- government relationship in negotiation and operation of any agreements)
There was a question regarding how support funds to Tribes would be managed under negotiated agreements. It was noted that there are some legislative impediments regarding what Tribes can collect in indirect or contract support cost funds. For those that do have a legislative impediment, the Tribes will be seeking support for including the full support cost funding for these programs.
A representative of ACF noted that due to the factors such as changing population and other data factors, then it would be important to look at the timing of these agreements and when they are re- negotiated. She also questioned how data would be gathered from the Tribes which impact these agreements. In response, Mike Herrell noted that similar to Title IV and Title V, most agreements most likely would be negotiated on an annual basis. As far as the data issue and tribal populations, he noted that there is a formula already in place for many of the programs and a process of how Tribal “counts” and shares are derived. Ron Allen commented that there is also a process in Title V for multi- year agreements dependent on appropriations and that some adjustments can be made, however, during a demonstration phase for annual funding agreements.
Sue Clain asked what Tribal comments have been received regarding Tribes’ responsibility for matching requirements. Mike Herrell noted that most Tribes have recommended the use of other federal resources for matching requirements. Ron Allen also mentioned that Tribe’s may also request a waiver of some matching requirements and that there are also examples of some cooperative agreements that have been worked out between Tribes and some States. A Tribal representative from Jicarilla Apache Tribe noted that P.L. 93-638 provides for the use of federal resources as matching funds.
Ileen Sylvestor (Alaska) requested whether these funds can come directly to the Tribes rather than passing those funds through the State. Mike Herrell noted that some of these funds are State funds, not Federal funds and that Tribes would have to voluntarily negotiate with the State regarding these funds. It was noted that this may vary from State to State.
Sue Clain, DHHS, noted that during the meeting with the state representatives, comments were received that States believe that they already do not receive enough funding and that they would most likely not want to see their funding decreased.
Based on Tribal comments, redesign and consolidation of programs was also an important feature for the demonstration project. However, it was noted that other stakeholders have expressed concern regarding how an existing program identity, such as Head Start, would be protected.
Co-Chair Allen stated that there is some mis-understanding on this issue and that the integrity of the program, required data elements, accountability, performance measures and other assurances would be negotiated.
Nancy Dufrain, Chehalis Tribe noted that re-design and consolidation is more effective for smaller Tribes and allows the Tribes to provide the best type of service for the members. Many of these programs are administered in a comprehensive, holistic approach in Tribal communities. Its important to look at the intent of these programs, rather than just looking at the “names”.
Reed LaBow, DHHS, asked whether the authority four redesign would rest with the Tribal government or would they need to apply for a waiver. In most cases, the authority to redesign is with the Tribal government, except for regulatory waiver authority which resides with the Secretary.
Mike Herrell raised the issue of financial accountability and if funds are moved from a Head Start program to another program, then how are these funds accounted for when reporting to Congress. Record keeping and or audit are ways of accounting for these funds. Ron Allen also mentioned that performance measures should be gathered regarding the effectiveness of the program and to note the shifting of any resources. Experience has been that additional Tribal funds have been added to existing programs.
There is some fear on the part of other stakeholders, that if programs are transferred to the Tribes, then they will be held accountable for the outcomes. It needs to be make clear that Tribes have total accountability for programs which have been transferred to them.
It was mentioned that State stakeholders also noted that they were concerned about the issue of dual eligibility be addressed in the demonstration project. It was suggested by a Tribal representative that this could be addressed through a memorandum of agreement with the State regarding who is being served. However, the other issue that needs to be addressed is how the “count” of eligibles is conducted and coordinated. Food stamp and commodity programs were raised as examples (models) that could be used to address these eligibility issues.
A Tribal representative noted that the issue of “mobility” of individuals can be worked out between the Tribes and the States and that there are different models that can be looked at. James DeLaCruz, Quinault Nation, commented that these issues can be further addressed during a demonstration project.
Regarding the consultation overall, a representative from the National Council of State Legislatures noted that various issues were raised by the States so that they can be further discussed and that comments made last week at the consultation session were preliminary based on information that has been presented to date and knowledge of how programs are currently run. Mike Herrell noted that the purpose of the meeting today is to ensure that all points of view are raised and discussed.
A representative from the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe stressed the importance of continued communication and coordination between the Tribes and States. However, she pointed out that the Tribes were not included in last week’s consultation with the State representatives. Mike Herrell responded that the approach to consultation was developed in a “cascading” manner so that consultation would occur with Tribal representatives first followed by the States. He further noted that the meetings held last week with the States was the first of several meetings and that Tribes will be included in these future meetings to allow for adequate dialogue on these issues to assist in shaping and refining the recommendations. He also noted that the meeting with States was co-chaired by tribal representatives.
Nancy Dufrain, Chehalis Tribe, commented that many programs are on differing time periods and recommended that possibly they be consolidated into a concurrent fiscal year time period. Another Tribal representative stated that this provision could be negotiated into a funding agreement to assist in tracking audits and program reports. It was further recommended that this funding be provided in a lump sum amount up front.
· DHHS Programs of Interest to Tribes for Self-Governance -- Mike Herrell mentioned that currently there are over 300 programs within DHHS and that a list of programs to be included in the demonstration project needs to be developed. He reviewed the criteria and recommendations discussed to date during the consultation sessions, including:
1. Programs currently run by Tribe
2. Limited number of programs not currently run by Tribes that address
significant Tribal needs
3. Programs for which Tribal share of funds is identifiable
4. Neutral or positive impact on beneficiaries
Mike Herrell then presented an initial potential program list “for discussion purposes”. This list included programs that Tribes are currently running, such as:
1. Tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
2. Child Support Enforcement
3. Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
4. Community Services Block Grant
5. Child Development Block Grant
6. Tribal Work Grants
7. Head Start
8. Child Welfare (IV-B)
9. Promoting Safe and Stable Families (IV-B)
10. Family Violence - Battered Women’s Shelters
11. Indian Programs - Grants to Tribes (Aging Services)
Nancy DuFrain, Chehalis Tribe, mentioned IV-E programs dealing with foster care. She mentioned that States receive a bonus for these dollars and Tribes could negotiate with States. However, Mike Herrell mentioned that IV-E programs have not yet been operated by Tribes as compared to the above list which Tribes are currently operating.
Because of the diversity in Tribal interests, there should be a process for including some other programs (possibly limiting the number of those demonstrations) outside the above list, including mental health services (planning projects) and substance abuse prevention and treatment grants. The above list could serve as base that everyone is eligible for and another list of programs for limited demonstrations. It was raised that the capacity of the DHHS to manage these programs must also be considered in developing the list.
A Tribal representative asked how these programs would work with the current P.L. 102-477 program mechanism. Mike Herrell recommended that a Self-Governance demonstration would provide another mechanism for accessing these programs.
Myra Munson, Sonosky, Chambers, recommended that a Tribal meeting be held to conduct a discussion regarding which specific programs should be included. Mike Herrell mentioned that a definitive list of programs needs to be developed so that all stakeholders have an opportunity to provide additional specific comments on these programs.
A representative from SAMHSA concurred with the recommendation to have additional meetings regarding the specific programs. Chairman Allen also recommended that the Feasibility Study Team meet to review this list and categories of programs that could be included in a demonstration project.
Katherine Finlay, Southern Governor’s Association mentioned that its difficult to take 300 programs to the Governors and State Legislators and that it would be more helpful to have a list of specific programs and issues related to these programs to serve as a starting point for discussions between States and Tribes in order to make these demonstration projects successful.
Nancy DuFrain, Chehalis Tribe, stated that if the goal is to develop a comprehensive approach to administer these programs, then the specific list of programs should reflect and incorporate this continuum of care. She also referenced the need to include mental health and SAMSHA programs.
A Tribal representative questioned what is the State’s responsibility in this process. It was noted that further discussion with the States needs to take place as the list of specific programs gets further refined. This includes input from other stakeholders as well. The purpose of the Study Team is to assist in facilitating these discussions.
Ginny Gorman, Child Care Bureau, noted that the Child Care Development Block grants are also eligible under P.L, 102-477 and that there has been success with this process. The Tribes and Federal partners have designed one reporting format and streamlined the funding application and plans to meet the needs of the parties.
· Congressionally Mandated Assessments
Costs issues to be addressed in the final report include start-up costs, federal administrative costs and program costs (above current baseline).
Savings issues to be addressed in the final report include program efficiencies gained and federal functions which may devolve.
Potential impact on beneficiaries and legal barriers are also mandated to be included in the final report.
Next Steps
July 1, 2001 Deadline for First Round of comments/recommendations
September 1, 2001Draft Outline Available for further consultation
October 1, 2001Deadline for Second Round of comments/recommendations
November 2, 2001Draft report available for 30-day comment period
January 1, 2002Final Report available for review
February 2, 2002Deadline for Submission of separate views to final report
February 18, 2002Final Report to Congress
Comments can be sent to:
Dr. Delores L. Parron
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
200 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 447D
Washington, D.C. 20201
e-mail: SELFGOVERNANCE@OSASPE.DHHS.GOV
Web Site: http:/aspe.hhs.Gov/SelfGovernance
Telephone: (202) 690-8291
Facsimile: (202) 690-8252
Closing Remarks
Dr. Parron noted that she has only received two formal responses regarding this study to date. She stated that we want to go forward to Congress with a strong and consistent message. This is an excellent opportunity that may not come around again and we should take advantage of this opportunity. In closing, she encouraged further Tribal comments and recommendations and that the Federal representatives will continue to work with the Tribal partners in this process.
Chairman Allen commented that the Federal members of the Study Team have been working well with the Tribes and that the Tribes are engaged. He emphasized that need to reach compromise with all interested parties. He noted that the final study will not be the law, but will provide a starting point. One of the challenges is to make the decisions regarding the final program list as soon as possible. The Tribes will have additional opportunities to provide further input and strategy on how to advance this initiative.