Operating TANF: Opportunities and Challenges for Tribes and Tribal Consortia

I. Introduction

[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]

Contents

1. Legislative Authority and Status of Tribal TANF
2. Study Methods and Sites

Operating a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program has major implications for Indian tribes and tribal consortia.⁽¹⁾ The decision to operate TANF is difficult, because though the program is important to tribes, operating it poses complex challenges. This report describes the experiences of 10 tribal grantees in planning, implementing, and operating TANF programs. It was prepared for the use of tribal, federal, and state officials and other stakeholders in welfare reform in Indian country. We present the challenges and problems encountered, as well as the lessons learned from the programs' experiences, to demonstrate how tribes have tailored TANF programs to the needs of their members.⁽²⁾The ultimate impact of tribal TANF programs remains a question, however, because this brief study cannot rigorously determine whether tribal operation of TANF improves employment outcomes for clients. It is clear, however, that persistent economic problems in Indian country, especially the lack of unsubsidized employment opportunities, are a continuing challenge to tribal TANF programs, no matter how well such programs are run.

This chapter presents background information about tribal TANF, the study methods, and the sites. Chapter II describes key factors underlying the decision to operate a tribal TANF program. Chapter III discusses the development of a sound TANF plan, Chapter IV addresses tribal experiences in implementing and operating TANF, and Chapter V concludes with lessons learned and policy implications.

[Go To Contents]

A. Legislative Authority and Status of Tribal TANF

Recognizing the unique circumstances of American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages, Congress designed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law 104-193, to give tribes and tribal consortia flexibility in designing and administering their own TANF programs.⁽³⁾  PRWORA amended title IV-A of the Social Security Act (Public Law 74-271) which has been further amended.⁽⁴⁾  The Social Security Act, as amended, (the "Act") is the legislative basis of tribal TANF programs. As of March 1, 2003, a total of 38 tribes and tribal consortia have submitted TANF plans to, and received approval from, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Of those, 34 had been approved in mid-2001, at the time of the data collection for this study. Because some plans were submitted by consortia of multiple tribes, those 34 tribal TANF programs serve more than 170 tribes. In addition, many other tribes are considering operating the TANF program.

Though Tribal TANF experience is still limited, it has already yielded useful lessons. When this report was prepared, most tribal grantees had not finished implementing TANF or had operated the program for less than two years. Nevertheless, the 10 grantees in this study had identified and overcome major challenges. Each grantee was implementing or operating the program enthusiastically, with high expectations.

B. Study Methods and Sites

This study focuses on a small but diverse set of tribal TANF programs. We selected a purposeful sample of 10 tribal TANF programs from the 34 approved by DHHS (when the study was being designed) to ensure variation in the following attributes:

• Region of the country
• Size of the TANF population
• Whether the tribal grantee operates a PL 102-477 program, an option that can facilitate coordination and integration of tribal programs, and thus affect how TANF is integrated into overall tribal services⁽⁵⁾
• Whether the grantee is an individual tribe or a tribal consortium, which can affect the complexity of program design and operations

The 10 tribal TANF grantees are diverse on other dimensions as well, including land area, tribal population, and population living on the reservation (Table I.1).

We collected data between August 2001 and July 2002 through telephone interviews with all 10 tribal grantees, followed by in-depth site visits to three of them. We conducted the telephone interviews with two or three key informants at each of the 10 grantees, generally the director of the tribal TANF program, a member of the TANF staff, and the director of the tribal social services program. The three grantees selected for follow-up visits (Navajo Nation, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Torres Martinez Consortium) had developed innovative approaches to planning, implementing, or operating TANF or had experienced challenging problems. During the site visits, we interviewed tribal TANF staff (for example, the director, case manager, and intake workers), the director of social services, tribal administrators and elected officials (for example, the chairman, governor, or chief and the financial officer), and members of the tribal planning department. We also interviewed state TANF staff members and /or state officials who dealt with tribal TANF programs.⁽⁶⁾

[Go to Contents]

Endnotes

1.  In this report, "tribes" generally refers to federally recognized American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages; however, no Alaska Native village or tribe in Alaska is eligible to operate TANF — section 419(4)(B) of the Act defines an "Indian tribe," with respect to the State of Alaska, to include only the Metlakatla Indian Community and 12 specified Alaska Native regional nonprofit entities.

2.  This is the third of four reports on tribal welfare to work (WtW) programs, produced as part of the National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program. The first report, prepared for tribal leaders and managers, described preliminary findings of tribal experiences in designing and implementing WtW programs (Hillabrant and Rhoades 2000). The second report, prepared for a wider audience, assessed the implementation and operation of tribal WtW programs, describing social, cultural, economic, programmatic, and other factors that affect their operation (Hillabrant et al. 2001). The current report focuses on the tribal TANF program, the welfare program with the most participants and largest budget in Indian country. The last report will focus on innovative economic development efforts in Indian country and their role in moving tribal members from welfare to work.

3.  PRWORA amended title IV-A of the Social Security Act (Public Law 74-271) which was further amended by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33). Because this report is intended for a wide audience, we generally refer to "PRWORA" rather than to "Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, as amended," "Title IV-A," or the "Social Security Act."

4.  Title IV-A has been amended since passage of PRWORA by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) and the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-169).

5.  Public Law 102-477 — the Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992 — authorizes tribal governments to combine federal funds received under formula grant programs related to employment under one plan, with one budget, and with one set of annual reports (statistical, narrative, financial status, and audit) for the integrated program submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

6.  Some Indian reservations/tribal lands cross state and national borders. In general, reservations that cross state boundaries have large land areas and large tribal populations. One tribe in the study sample, the Navajo Nation, lies within three states: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents

Main Page of Report | Contents of Report

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)