[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]
Business and economic development (BD/ED) in "Indian country" is critical to the success of the welfare reform efforts of American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages.(1) Without sufficient jobs, many American Indians and Alaska Natives residing in Indian country cannot move from welfare to work and escape the pernicious effects of poverty. Tribal cultures place a high value on employment as a demonstration of personal responsibility and contribution to family, clan, community, tribe, and country (Hillabrant et al. 2000), but on many reservations unemployment rates exceed 40 percent, few jobs are available, and there is often intense competition for whatever jobs do exist. Recognizing the scope and importance of this problem, the federal government has implemented efforts to promote BD/ED in Indian country.
This report was prepared for tribal, state, and federal officials and other stakeholders in welfare reform in Indian country. It is the last of four reports on the evaluation of tribal Welfare-to-Work (WtW) programs as mandated by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.(2) Recognizing the unique circumstances of Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages, the tribal component of the WtW evaluation was conducted independently of the overall evaluation.(3) The tribal component had a broad focus that included the development of welfare reform in Indian country, the factors affecting the success of tribal WtW and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs, and efforts to promote BD/ED, the focus of this paper.
The tribal component of the WtW evaluation relied on guidance provided by a ten-person study advisory committee that included elected tribal officials, subject matter experts, and persons experienced in doing research in Indian country. The advisory committee worked with the study contractors to define the study objectives, research methods and sites, and helped develop ways to minimize potential disruption to tribal programs associated with participation in the study.
Earlier site visits conducted for the tribal WtW evaluation revealed that the level of private-sector investment and the number of private-sector employers operating on or near reservations were too low to sustain the kind of job creation needed to move large numbers of tribal members from welfare to work. This last study focuses on the following issues:
This report describes how some of these federal programs and initiatives have been used by a small sample of tribes and Alaska Native corporations. The report also describes the legal, historical, and cultural context of tribal BD/ED; federal programs and initiatives most useful to the study tribes/Native corporations; the challenges tribes/Native corporations face in pursuing BD/ED; and the promising approaches they are developing to minimize or overcome them.
[ Go to Contents ]
This study focuses on a small but diverse set of American Indian tribes and for-profit regional Alaska Native corporations. The sample was selected with the goal of obtaining insight about ways tribes overcome barriers to BD/ED. Based on what we learned in the earlier phases of the tribal component of the National Welfare-to-Work Evaluation, we identified a group of tribes and Native corporations thought to have promising approaches to BD/ED. The study sample was selected from this group. We sought to achieve diversity in the sample so that the study results would be relevant to a broad range of tribal settings and circumstances. A profile of each of the tribes/Native corporations participating in the BD/ED phase of the study is presented in Appendix B.
Figure 1.
Location of study participants.
The 10 tribes/Native corporations in the study are from diverse geographic areas (Figure 1). Two of the study participants are regional Alaska Native corporations (Bristol Bay Native Corporation and Doyon, Ltd.) created by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), discussed in Chapter 2. One of the tribes is in the Pacific Northwest (Colville); three tribes are located in the northern plains (Cheyenne River Sioux, Three Affiliated Tribes, and Turtle Mountain Chippewa); one is in the southern plains (Citizen Potawatomi); two are in the southwest (Gila River and Navajo Nation); and one is in the southeast (Mississippi Choctaw).
| Tribe/Native Corp | Land Area (ACRES) |
Unemployment (Percent) |
Enrolled Members | Residents | Employed Full-Time | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bristol Bay Native Corp. (BBNC) | 3,000,000 | 70 | 7,000 | 6,000 | n/a | AK |
| Cheyenne River Sioux | 1,419,504 | 80 | 14,423 | 14,861 | 1,085 | SD |
| Citizen Potawatomi | 4,018 | 10 | 24,500 | 24,414 | 5,880 | OK |
| Colville Confederated Tribes | 1,400,000 | 48 | 8,700 | 5,000 | 3,420 | WA |
| Doyon Limited | 12,500,000 | n/a | 14,000 | 14,000 | n/a | AK |
| Gila River | 371,933 | 15 | 11,500 | 15,084 | 5,896 | AZ |
| Mississippi Choctaw | 37,483 | 28 | 8,900 | 5,190 | 2,590 | MS |
| Navajo Nation | 16,224,896 | 61 | 255,543 | 180,000 | 28,772 | AZ, NM, UT |
| Three Affiliated Tribes | 1,000,000 | 69 | 8,400 | 3,776 | 1,023 | ND |
| Turtle Mountain Chippewa | 140,107 | 58 | 25,000 | 8,331 | 5,247 | ND |
| Notes: "Land Area" refers to
the size of the reservation for tribes that have a reservation, the area
owned by the tribe for tribes that lack a reservation (Citizen Potawatomi),
and the lands awarded to the regional Native corporation by ANCSA. Unemployment data are from the most recent BIA Labor Market Report (1997). The unemployment rates reported for Doyon, Ltd. and BBNC are for the Alaska Native villages in their corresponding regions. Enrollment data for the two Alaska Native corporations, Bristol Bay and Doyon, Ltd., are for shareholders. The "Enrolled Members" column indicates the number of tribal members regardless of the location of their residence. n/a indicates data unavailable. |
||||||
There is diversity in the sample in terms of the tribe/Native corporation's land area and, to a lesser extent, population size (Table 1.1). In terms of land area, the two Alaska Native corporations represent a special case. In accordance with ANCSA, shareholders in each corporation reside (or resided) in one of 12 regions of Alaska. These regions are large: the Bristol Bay region contains almost 3 million acres, and Doyon's region is entitled to 12.5 million acres. The tribe with the largest land area in the sample, Navajo Nation, has more than 16 million acres — almost the size of West Virginia. On the other hand, some of the tribes in the sample have small land areas. The Mississippi Choctaw Nation has 37,000 acres, the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, only 4,000.(4)
Most of the tribes in the study have large enrollments. Navajo Nation (which vies with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma for being the largest tribe) has more than 250,000 members. The Citizen Potawatomi and Turtle Mountain Chippewa tribes each have about 25,000. The three smallest tribes in the sample (Colville Confederated Tribes, Mississippi Choctaw, Three Affiliated Tribes) each have fewer than 9,000.(5) Again, the regional Alaska Native corporations represent a special case. Many of the shareholders in these corporations reside in Native villages with a population of 600 or fewer. Twenty-eight percent of Doyon shareholders reside in these Native villages, 26 percent in Fairbanks, 11 percent in Anchorage, 10 percent in other parts of Alaska, and 25 percent outside the state.
Unemployment also varies among the tribes/Native corporations in the study sample. Citizen Potawatomi (10 percent) and Gila River (15 percent) had the lowest rates. Cheyenne River Sioux (80 percent) and Doyon, Ltd. (80 percent) had the highest. Such levels of unemployment are unknown in most American communities today (the rate for the United States as a whole was about 4.7% in 1997 and about 5.6% in January 2004).(6)
While each tribe/Native corporation has unique circumstances and location, some exploit common economic sectors. Cheyenne River Sioux, Gila River, Navajo, and Three Affiliated Tribes have strong farming and/or ranching industries. All except Navajo had some gaming operations, and the tribes with the most successful gaming (Gila River and Mississippi Choctaw) also have developed the tourism-hospitality sectors. Tourism and recreation unrelated to gaming are important to some tribes, such as Cheyenne River Sioux, Citizen Potawatomi, Colville, and Navajo. Production of forest products and/or mining are important sectors for the Colville, Mississippi Choctaw, and Navajo tribes (Table 1.2).
| Tribe/Native Corp. | Locations of Operations | Key Industries |
|---|---|---|
| Bristol Bay Native Corp. | AL, AK, CA, TX, WA, Russia | Oil and Gas production, Investment Management |
| Cheyenne River Sioux | SD | Gaming, Gas, Communications, Beef and Bison, Fisheries, Tourism, Retail |
| Citizen Potawatomi | OK | Bank, Gaming, Recreation, Retail |
| Colville Confederated Tribes | WA | Agriculture, Livestock, Gaming, Construction, Fisheries, Forest products, Tourism and Recreation |
| Doyon, Ltd. | AK | Energy Production Services, Real Estate, Investment Management |
| Gila River | AZ | Gaming, Tourism and Recreation, Industrial Parks, Agriculture, Retail |
| Mississippi Choctaw | MS, MI, AZ, FL, SC, IL, TX, Mexico | Manufacturing , Gaming, Construction, Recreation, Tourism, Retail, Forestry, Energy Exploration |
| Navajo Nation | AZ, NM, UT | Agriculture and Livestock, Construction, Forestry, Tribal Government, Industrial Parks, Manufacturing, Mining, Tourism and Recreation |
| Three Affiliated Tribes | ND | Agriculture and Livestock, Construction, Fisheries, Gaming, Manufacturing, Retail, Tourism and Recreation |
| Turtle Mountain Chippewa | ND | Agriculture and Livestock, Construction, Fisheries, Gaming, Industrial Parks, Manufacturing, Tourism and Recreation |
| Note: In addition to business activities taking place on their reservations/tribal lands, some tribes/Native corporations operate businesses in other locations. | ||
[ Go to Contents ]
We collected data between August 2001 and July 2002 through telephone interviews with all 10 tribes/Native corporations, followed by in-depth site visits to 3 of them (Colville, Mississippi Choctaw, and Navajo Nation). Telephone interviews generally included the director and staff of the tribal economic development program and officials of tribally owned or chartered enterprises. While all the study sites were selected, in part, because they had developed promising approaches to planning, implementing, or operating business or BD/ED initiatives, the three grantees selected for follow-up site visits described BD/ED approaches that are of special interest to other tribes/Native corporations, Congress, and other stakeholders in welfare reform in Indian country. Colville is applying advanced technology and developing new approaches to exploit its forestry resources. Mississippi Choctaw attracted manufacturing companies to their reservation and developed a variety of successful BD/ED initiatives before implementing gaming facilities. Navajo Nation, with its large land area, is pursuing BD/ED while devolving some authority from the central tribal government to local political entities, the Chapter Houses. Navajo Nation is also working with private companies in mining and power generation, and with two other tribes in the Four Corners Enterprise Community.
During the site visits, we interviewed staff of tribal BD/ED programs, tribal officials (chairman, governor, chief, financial officer, etc.), staff of welfare programs (such as TANF, if operated by the tribe, WtW, workforce development, vocational education, and vocational rehabilitation), members of the tribal planning department, and managers and staff of tribal businesses. We obtained additional information about the study participants from their Web sites, reports provided by tribal officials, federal agencies, and reference materials.
The next chapter describes the legal, historical, and cultural context of tribal BD/ED and federal legislation supporting it. Chapter 3 discusses federal BD/ED initiatives and programs, and identifies those that were most useful to the tribes and Alaska Native corporations participating in the study. Chapter 4 discusses challenges to tribal BD/ED as well as solutions the tribes/Native corporations in the study are using.
[ Go to Contents ]
(1) In this report "Indian country" refers to American Indian reservations, rancherias, and pueblos; adjacent counties; and other areas where large numbers of American Indians or Alaska Natives reside (as in Alaska and Oklahoma). A different definition of Indian country is given under 18USC Chapter 53, Section 1151. For the sake of convenience, "tribal" in this report refers to both American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages.
(2) 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, prepared for a wide audience, assessed the implementation and operation of tribal WtW programs, describing social, cultural, economic, programmatic, and other factors affecting their operation (Hillabrant et al. 2001). The third report focused on the tribal TANF program, the Indian country welfare program with the most participants and the largest budget (Hillabrant et al. 2003).
(3) The national WtW evaluation is described in several reports, such as Perez-Johnson, Hershey, and Bellotti, 2000; and Nightingale, Pindus, and Trutko, 2002.
(4) American Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages, and Alaska regional Native corporations own lands. In Alaska, most Indian and Alaska Native land ownership was determined by ANCSA. Title to Indian lands in the lower 48 states has been established in treaties between tribes and the United States, Congressional legislation, and executive order, as discussed in Chapter 2.
(5) Not all tribal members reside on their reservation. They are free to reside on the reservation or elsewhere. With the high levels of unemployment in Indian country, a large "Indian Diaspora" left the reservations to secure employment. Since passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, all American Indians and Alaska Natives are citizens of the United States, eligible for passports and free to travel and reside abroad.
(6) Precise data on employment and unemployment on reservations are scarce for several reasons: (1) many families lack a telephone, which makes it difficult to contact them; (2) many residences lack a standard address such as a street name and number, which makes it difficult to reach them by mail or by personal interviews; (3) significant numbers of Indians and Alaska Natives have limited English skills, which complicates communication; (4) some tribal members lack social security numbers, which makes tracking them difficult; (5) many reservations cross county, state, or national boundaries, which creates jurisdictional problems; and (6) many Indians and Alaska Natives are involved in subsistence economies, deriving much of their food from hunting, fishing, and trapping, and deriving income from non-salaried entrepreneurial activities such as selling fish and game, crafts, and art objects. For these and other reasons, employment data for Indian reservations tend to be less valid than for other locations. Employment data are published by the BIA, working in concert with the tribes, the Bureau of the Census, and the Department of Labor. When this report was prepared, the most recent data available from the BIA were for the 1997 calendar year, the source for unemployment rate data presented in Table I.1.
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)